The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Liverpool on Friday 24 March? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Children

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to encourage more fathers to accept their responsibilities in relation to their children.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, through the PSHE and citizenship curriculum, pupils are taught about the roles of parents and carers and the values of family life. In the respect action plan launched earlier this year we announced an investment of £70 million over two years to help parents improve their parenting skills. We have committed to establishing a new parenting academy, supporting local authorities to commission parenting programmes and providing specific support for teenage parents.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Are the Government aware of a recent report by the Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children entitled, Families and the State? I am going to deposit a copy of it in the Library of the House. Do the Government accept the principle set out therein that,
	"There is a need for consistency, clarity and public information in relation to the Government's expectations of standards of care in the upbringing of children".?
	Will the Government please, after consultation, provide guidelines so that parents can have greater clarity about what government expects of them and what help they are entitled to expect from government and so that teachers who are teaching young people in school can have greater confidence in what they are teaching, especially with reference to teaching young boys about the responsibilities that they will encounter if and when they become fathers?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are very aware of the commission's report, Families and the State: Two-way support and responsibilities. As the noble Lord will know, the report supports many of the steps that the Government are already taking in providing support to families in the upbringing of their children, particularly in our approach to early years intervention, which I know the noble Lord believes to be very important. The Government have no current plans to respond specifically to the findings, but of course we shall continue to work with the authors of the report—as we do already—to develop more policies to support parents and families. Clarity is very important. It is important for parents to know where they can get help and about the services that they have a right to get help from. We have put many resources into that recently.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will know that, at the point of divorce or separation, 90 per cent of parents reach agreement about ongoing contact with their children. The remaining 10 per cent often have intractable problems that can be made worse, not better, by repeated resort to the court. Does she therefore agree that the best course for helping those parents and enabling fathers to stay in contact is ensuring that sufficient resources are available for alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as those provided by CAFCASS, in which I declare an interest as chair?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we very much support the work of CAFCASS, which is doing terrific work turning around that organisation and ensuring that parents get a great deal of support with the problems that they face. My noble friend will know how anxious we are to help fathers, mothers and children avoid the conflict and distress that can result from relationship breakdown. Like her, we want to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts. So often that results in poor outcomes for children and greater dissatisfaction for parents. I agree with my noble friend, and she will know that we have revised parenting plans to give parents more information and to show them case studies in which people have come to agreements without having to resort to the courts, which is very important.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although mothers naturally have an instinct for looking after their children from a very early age, do fathers not have the ultimate responsibility of financial care? Should not fathers be reminded of that at a very early stage?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I agree that fathers should be reminded at a very early stage that they have financial responsibility for their children. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In 21st-century Britain, mothers also have a great deal of financial responsibility for their children. We are trying in every way to ensure that fathers take that responsibility early and seriously.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the first few months or the first year of a child's life is an important time for the child to bond with its father? Therefore, will the Government extend the period during which ordinary paternity leave can be taken from the current eight weeks to at least six months, if not a year? Does she agree that parents and not the Government should decide when a mother needs support?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, families are the first to know when they need support. The Government are there to help and to support and not to interfere unduly. We agree with the noble Baroness that fathers need support from the early days of a child's life, just as mothers do. As she will know, for the very first time, we have brought in paternity leave. Fathers take time off, and they can receive paternity pay. The noble Baroness will know that there is legislation before the House that looks to the future on parental leave. When my grandson was not yet one, I saw a report saying, "He is very good at playing and relaxing". I hope that he does not have a similar report when he is 18.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the most important points is to enable parents to hear what their children think and feel about the parental task?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate. He will know that in our Childcare Bill we are seeking to ensure that children have their say upfront about what is good for them.

Government: External Management Consultants

Lord Smith of Clifton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much was spent each year on external management consultants by central government departments and agencies from 2000 to 2005.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, a central record is not kept of expenditure by government departments on external management consultants. Individual departments are responsible for deciding whether to engage consultants.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I find that answer extraordinary. How on earth do the Government monitor the spiralling expenditure on outside management consultants?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, as I have said, it is the responsibility of individual departments to undertake that monitoring. However, they receive help through the OGC, which is an independent office in the Treasury whose role is to work with the public sector as a catalyst to achieve efficiency and value for money in commercial activities and to improve success in the delivery of programmes and projects.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister not appreciate that choosing to use external management consultants is often a cop-out by Ministers and departments from taking responsibility for reaching appropriate decisions? If he were to get the figure for the retention and payment of external management consultants, would he include in it the cost of their recommendations? Would he also say how many management consultants, having been retained and paid, have recommended that no change should be made?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the OGC guidance emphasises the need for a competitive tender and the use of professional procurement teams in the appointment of consultants. As the noble Lord would probably anticipate, I do not have to hand data in respect of recommendations by individual management consultants. Whether value for money is obtained depends on the budgets of individual departments. As we heard earlier today in another place, our public expenditure plans are fully costed and affordable and are being dealt with within our fiscal rules.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the case of international development, consultants are used to spread capacity-building far wider than DfID's in-house people could do to fight corruption and to increase tax collection capacity, as well as for many other social uses?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree with that. We should recognise that the public sector is going through a period of major change as the public rightly demand more than they did in the past. It is inevitable at such a time that we will not have in-house all the skills that we need where and when we need them. It is entirely appropriate that we should use the best skills around. Another benefit of using consultants is that we have the opportunity of expertise transfer to our in-house staff.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I was a little disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that the Minister was quite so coy in his original Answer. Is he a bit shy of revealing what a lovely view of the world consultants have from the gravy train for which they have a season ticket?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I was not trying to be coy; I was trying to give the House a factual Answer. If noble Lords looked at the reports that come from management consultants, they would not necessarily take the view that there was a gravy train. However, we need proper procurement activity to make sure that we are getting value for money.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is often great inefficiency in the use of consultants? Is he aware that, in the case of government departments, the biggest two items of expenditure in 2006–07 will be £930,000 for cleaning and £231,000 for official shorthand writing? Is it not at least worth considering whether that could be done more efficiently in-house?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we need that analysis of the whole of public expenditure so that we can make decisions on a proper basis. It may well be that some services can be provided more efficiently in-house. Where that can be done, I am all in favour of making sure that we do it.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the Minister could not tell us how much had been spent, but can he tell us how many consultancy arrangements were in place from 2000 to 2005?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I say again that there is no central record of the figures, which are held in individual departments. Departments have responsibility for their budgets. There is nothing particularly unusual about that in a commercial enterprise or in the public sector—local authorities as well as central government. I suppose that it is perfectly possible to spend a lot of time and public money in trying to reach a figure that could be held centrally, but whether there is value in that is open to doubt.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when the Minister gets a Question such as this and knows that each government department keeps accounts, is it not possible for his officials to get from them the figures, perhaps relating to one year, and to use a calculator to add them up so that he can give an Answer?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is not as simple as that. A complicating factor is the departments' definitions of consultancy and management consultancy, which in a sense underlines the fact that we live in a hugely complex environment where there are definitional problems. At the end of the day, one must judge whether going through an exercise—internally or employing consultants—to produce a figure to satisfy somebody's curiosity is a good use of public expenditure.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am surprised at the Minister's Answer. Is it not true that each department now has a board to run it, rather more like a business? I would have thought that if departments were run like a business they would have the figures and, as my noble friend said, it would not be difficult to add them up.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I have dealt with that. These are the responsibilities of the individual departments. A range of Questions has been asked in another place on an individual departmental basis, and certain information has been provided in response. This could be done on a departmental basis, I imagine.

Prisons: Deaths in Custody

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reduce the number of deaths of women in custody.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Prison Service's specifically targeted suicide prevention and self-harm management strategy for women prisoners focuses on dealing with the underlying factors that can lead them to harm themselves, including previous abuse, substance misuse and mental health problems, experienced by a high proportion of women in custody. The dramatic reduction in the number of apparently self-inflicted deaths involving women prisoners is encouraging.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she not accept that the number of deaths of women in custody is absolutely shameful; that many of them suffer from mental illness and commit suicide; and that prison is not the place for them? One must accept that they have the capacity to harm themselves and others, but should these people not be treated in secure psychiatric units?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to a number of issues. What we have done in the recent past has helped the situation. It is a matter of some pride that this year so far—I make that caveat—no woman has died in custody. We take it into account that many women who come into prison have, unfortunately, a tragic history, and a number have made attempts to commit suicide before they get there. We must do everything that we can to eradicate that.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in her annual report last month, the Chief Inspector of Prisons stressed a link between women prisoner suicides and overcrowding? As the number of women prisoners is once again rising, will the Minister do whatever she can to reduce it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly assure my noble friend that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that only those who should be in prison are there. Our work on reducing the number of women has been trenchant in the past few years and months. This year, we have concentrated on reduction, and I assure him that we will continue to do so.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, what consideration has the Minister given to alternative approaches to penal policy, such as the proposal by the Wedderburn Committee, established by the Prison Reform Trust, for a national network of local women's supervision, rehabilitation and support centres that will enable women prisoners to maintain links with their family?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are looking carefully at how we can reduce women offending. We have a women's offending reduction programme. Noble Lords will know that we have allocated £9.15 million, secured in the spending round of 2004, to develop and trial multi-agency, one-stop approaches in the community for women, in two areas over the next three years, in the Together Women programme. We are energetically looking at possible alternatives to imprisonment that would address equally effectively the needs of these vulnerable women, reducing the level of harm that they can cause.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, following on from what the Minister said about looking for alternatives to custody and the earlier question referring to the problems of overcrowding, I must say that, when I studied the issue of suicides in prison, it was clear that there was a correlation between idleness—prisoners locked up in their cell doing nothing—and the incidence of self-harm and suicide, particularly among women. At the same time, the Prison Reform Trust published an extremely good report on women in which it recommended the appointment of a women's justice board, so that the issue could be covered both in custody and in the community. Has there been any further action, bearing in mind the success of the Youth Justice Board and the fact that the suggestion was made six years ago?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already mentioned our work on the reduction programme. I have also undertaken a review, which will soon declare its terms of reference and its head. As noble Lords know, we are looking at end-to-end offender management and the way in which we can bring that in. We are also looking at how we can meet the needs of women, in particular. The increase in the relationship between mental health and the in-reach teamwork that is taking place directly impacts on what we can do in that regard. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the appropriate vigour is being exercised in the matter, not least by me.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, has acknowledged that there has been a modest improvement, which is all to the good. Will the Minister confirm that there has been a dramatic rise in the number and proportion of women in prison? When she and her team look at the solutions to the tragic problem of disproportionate self-harm and suicide among women in prison, will she look again at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, on death in custody? Will the Minister also look at the Fawcett Society and Women in Prison briefing? It makes nine very important recommendations, each of which I hope she will study with a view to accelerating the solution to this terrible problem.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we are looking at those. I have already mentioned the vulnerable women review, and we shall have the opportunity to take careful note of how we can address the issue. On overcrowding, noble Lords will know that having more than one person in the cell can be a protective measure for those who seek to commit suicide. It is not as straightforward as it may appear at first blush.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will my noble friend look again at the proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for a women's justice board? Does she accept that there are particular problems relating to women prisoners, not least the small but important number of pregnant women in prison, some of whom are drug-addicted and end up giving birth to babies who themselves are drug-addicted? Those are specialised problems, very much more for the health services than for the custodial services. We need a better focus on women's issues in prisons.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend. She will know that part of the directorate specifically looks at the issue of women. We have been able to pull that work together, and are working hard with the Department of Health so that we have a specific, targeted approach to the needs of women. I refer both to the review and the work involving the £9.15 million, which will give us some acuity and understanding on how to respond better to some of the issues.

Housing: Shared Ownership

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they are increasing the 80 per cent ownership limit on shared ownership rural housing to 100 per cent on 1 April in advance of the report of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are not pre-empting the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. The Government are keen to expand home ownership through Homebuy, but we have listened to the concerns expressed about the retention of affordable housing in rural areas and recognise that those areas can be subject to particular housing pressures. We will therefore continue to allow housing associations to restrict staircasing on rural exception sites where it is possible and appropriate under leasehold legislation. We will also introduce further safeguards as planned.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer, which goes well beyond the usual courtesy. It is extremely good news. We all agree with encouraging home ownership, but there are particular problems in the shared ownership rural housing sector, which the Government have clearly recognised in their decision not to change the policy. Is my noble friend aware that the announcement will be welcomed by the whole rural housing sector, especially the Rural Housing Trust, which has worked hard on the problem?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to bring good news to the House, especially via an ex-Chief Whip. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Cameron, have also drawn attention to the issues. I can assure noble Lords that the housing associations will be able to operate in the future using the same criteria and the same judgment that they have always had.
	In the case of houses, it will be possible to restrict staircasing under the legislation as long as they meet the low-rent test. That means that outside Greater London, as long as the rent charged on any unowned equity throughout the term of the lease is at least £250 a year, staircasing can be restricted on rural exception sites without the risk of enfranchisement. As noble Lords know, there has never been a problem with flats. I can also reassure noble Lords that the Government have no plans to remove the low-rent test for housing associations; they may continue to rely on it in the future.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is it not regrettable that it was only following our debate last week, when the issue was raised in the House, that the Government considered the problem again? Does the Minister not agree that it is also regrettable that the report on affordable housing forthcoming from Elinor Goodman was pre-empted by this announcement and that the Countryside Agency, which has great knowledge of affordable housing, was not consulted on the changes before they were announced?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have already explained that we have not pre-empted the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. Indeed the problem came to light in the consultation on Homebuy. No single view was expressed about whether staircasing should be restricted; several groups put the case that it made an unfavourable impact on buyers and lenders. The important thing is that the Government have listened to the weight of opinion; I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased by that.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, it is obviously welcome that local housing authorities should be given the discretion to assess the needs of their own area in this respect; that is a good step forward by the Government. Does the Minister recognise that any extension of the process next week would completely undermine the new initiative taken by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement this afternoon to encourage equity sharing? Does she recognise that, in some areas of the country, such as Cornwall and the south-west and many other rural areas, this is already a very serious problem because it removes affordable homes from the local housing stock available to local families?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I risk repeating myself, but, as I have said, the situation remains unchanged. In our affordable rural housing policies, the noble Lord will know, we are looking carefully at ways to protect the countryside while ensuring that our villages and market towns are viable and have a strong future. The Affordable Rural Housing Commission is aiding us in that, but policies such as the rural exception and the fact that the right to acquire is not available in these areas all support our recognition that these areas need special help.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that much of the affordable housing in rural Britain originates from farmers and landowners providing land at discounted prices for the benefit of their parish—one hopes, in perpetuity? Is she also aware that this episode has seriously undermined confidence in the system and that the supply of land was already beginning to dry up? I am grateful for her reply today, but could she also commit the Government to ensuring that gifts, or partial gifts, of land made in this way will never be undermined by any form of right-to-buy or leasehold enfranchisement?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the clarification that I have given today, plus the other safeguards already offered, which have been welcomed—not least by the noble Lord—should provide landowners and providers with the reassurance that they need to ensure the provision of affordable housing in small rural areas. We will keep the situation under review. I take the point that the right to buy is heavily conditional in rural areas and will remain so; we have no plans to change that. The noble Lord's contribution to the debate is extremely welcome.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the announcement that staircasing should be increased to 100 per cent came about, in the light of the felicitous tones taken by the Minister now? Does she realise that it has caused the most enormous consternation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I said, the consultation on Homebuy drew attention to some of the complexities of leasehold legislation, and I know that the noble Baroness will understand that it is complex. Those complexities could encourage people to buy the freehold. We believe now that the low rent test is robust enough to stop this happening in the vast majority of cases. As I said, we will keep the situation under review.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, what is the shortfall of affordable rural housing in the smaller rural settlements of fewer than 3,000 people? How long will it take before that backlog is dealt with?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I do not have those figures to hand, and I am not sure that they are available. We have made commitments to increase the supply of affordable housing through the next spending review. When we look at what is possible, we will look very hard at what we can do for rural areas.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 28 March to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before I move Motion A, will the House give me the indulgence to note that Lord Ackner is no longer in his place? Many noble Lords will know that the only reason that Lord Ackner is not in his place is that he died yesterday.
	Lord Ackner had been a Member of your Lordships' House for 20 years. His elevation to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was the culmination of a very distinguished legal career. After Cambridge and military service during the Second World War, Desmond Ackner was called to the Bar in 1945 and took silk in 1961. Throughout his legal career, he made a great contribution to the General Council of the Bar, serving in a variety of positions, including as chairman from 1968 to 1970. He was loved by this House. There is not one Minister who has had the temerity to represent and speak on behalf of the Government for Home Office affairs who has not been placed in terrorem by Lord Ackner. If he rose to his feet, as he rose increasingly unsteadily as the years passed, one could be certain of one thing; that there would be a missile heading straight at you between the eyes—and he never missed.
	There are many in this House who not only came to fear the acuity of his decision-making and assessment but came to love his love of justice very much indeed. I was privileged to hold Desmond Ackner as my friend. His loss today is one that this House will have to bear for a very long time indeed. There is one advantage of course; when I come to move the Motion, I will hear him in my head and not in this House.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I say from the Cross Benches how much we appreciated Lord Ackner as a Cross-Bencher and for his defence of the judicial system and the interests of the individual. Sometimes we thought that he was a law unto himself, but he was actually a spokesman for fair and just law in this country. I spoke to his daughter this morning, and she told me that when he was in hospital yesterday, shortly before he died he asked for his bed to be moved to the window so that he could look out at the Parliament.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, our thoughts go out to Lord Ackner's family, to whom we extend our deepest condolences.
	Lord Ackner had probably the most well defined personality in your Lordships' House. I find it impossible to believe that he will no longer be here to make one of his characteristically disintegrating observations about the intentions or negligence of the government of the day.
	Lord Ackner freely admitted that he was not a candidate for the diplomatic corps. In his ferociously uncompromising search for the truth, he took no prisoners. Above all, he was merciless in his defence of this nation's hard-won freedoms. He was a cartographer whose maps contained no middle ground. In that respect there was much of the 17th century about him.
	Yet, there was nothing, there, cold or hard. He was, on the contrary, an immensely warm man, deeply loyal to his friends and passionately attached to Mr Burke's small platoons—to his school, to his college, to his Inn of Court and, of course, to your Lordships' House.
	Of all the qualities that Lord Ackner brought to the Bench—including a voracious appetite for work, a forensic mind of deep penetration, a wry self-deprecating sense of humour and a formidable grasp of the common law—what marked him out above all was his humanity. This was manifested in so many ways that an attempt to catalogue them would present an impossible task. But one particular theme dominates throughout. He was intensely protective of the rights of the criminally accused, and watched with growing dismay their remorseless erosion over the past 20 years.
	Lord Ackner had a deep respect for the traditions and hierarchy of the Bench and Bar, albeit on occasions disproportionately. A few years ago, I recall asking him whether he would try and influence the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about some legislative matter. At that time Lord Ackner was in his early 80s and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his early 90s. Lord Ackner's response to me I recall verbatim: "Oh, I couldn't possibly do that, old boy. I'm far too junior".
	Although increasingly infirm, Lord Ackner's mind remained, as all your Lordships know, razor sharp, and his appetite for work seemingly insatiable. They say that none of us is indispensable; but in your Lordships' House Lord Ackner is as near indispensable as makes no difference.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is very sad that Desmond Ackner—and I always think of him now as Desmond rather than as the noble and learned Lord, which he has just ceased to be—is no longer with us. He had a most distinguished career at the Bar and on the Bench, including as a member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. But I think he will be remembered best in your Lordships' House for his service on the Cross Benches as a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. In that, as we all know, he was very active up until the last few days of his life, in spite of his increasing infirmity.
	Lord Ackner was dedicated to justice, the rule of law and the rights of the individual, and he rightly saw his function as being a thorn in the side of the government, as the Minister made all too clear, and from time to time of others as well, including myself. He was an outstanding example of the value that retired Law Lords can bring to your Lordships' House, and he will be very sorely missed.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly add to the tributes. The other Thursday, after six months off on sick leave, it was my privilege to sit opposite Lord Ackner at the Long Table. I sat watching him and talking with him. He seemed to me to combine two, shall I say, proleptic episcopal attributes: gentleness and firmness. We are much the poorer for his passing.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I owe being a Queen's Counsel to Lord Ackner—which is a heavy responsibility. He said something of direct relevance to the Minister and what we are about to debate. It happened when we were in the Appellate Committee arguing a case called Pepper v Hart. The Attorney-General was trying to persuade the Law Lords that what we say in this House should not be looked at by judges in interpreting dodgy legislation. Lord Ackner looked at him—I believe it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, who had to face this—and said, "Mr Attorney, is the maxim, 'think before you speak' for Ministers incompatible with good governance?". There was no reply.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, Lord Ackner's father was a dentist. He told me that his first ever successful case was a dental case. It may be because of that—although I think many other Members of the House were in the same position—that he was always willing to look at anything for me. He was enormously helpful on the high hedges issue and only last week spoke to me about it both before and after the Question. I shall miss him very much.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as a beneficiary of possibly as many of these missiles as anyone here I would like to say how much I appreciated Lord Ackner. He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary shortly after I was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and therefore I had the extraordinary privilege of being slightly senior to him, which had some important implications for the amount of work one had to do in the Appellate Committee. commons amendments

[The page and line references are to Bill 38 as first printed for the Lords.]
	5 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it."
	11 Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (4)
	31 Clause 20, page 18, leave out lines 13 and 14
	34 Clause 21, page 19, leave out lines 29 to 44 and insert "indirectly encourage terrorism, within the meaning of "indirect encouragement" as specified in section Terrorism Act 2006"
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, insist on their Amendment No. 34B, but propose Amendment No. 34D in lieu.
	34B Page 19, line 39, leave out "of a description" and insert "that is illustrative of a type"
	34D Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
	"(8A) The reference in subsection (8) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is likely to be understood as—
	(a) the glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or such offences; and
	(b) a suggestion that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu.
	In moving the Motion I join with all of those who send their deepest sympathy and condolences to Lord Ackner's family. I will say a few words about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We turn today to the question of whether the offence of encouraging terrorism in Clause 1 should include a provision relating explicitly to the glorification of terrorism. We have already debated the question extensively, so I shall try to be brief, even telegraphic, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite.
	The reasons that the Government seek to include explicit references to glorification are clear. First, it is necessary to tackle those who inspire others to become terrorists by glorifying terrorism. It is a sad fact but there are those who would be recruited to terrorism through its glorification. In ensuring that this offence includes a reference to the glorification of terrorism, this Terrorism Bill will send a strong message—a message that the press and the public and would-be terrorist proselytisers understand—that we will not tolerate those who glorify terrorism with a view to encouraging terrorist outrages.
	Secondly, because of the clear danger that arises from the glorification of terrorism, the Government made a commitment to the electorate to tackle it. The electorate voted for this Government on the basis of that manifesto. Thirdly, in tackling the glorification of terrorism we will be reinforcing our commitment to the aims and aspirations of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624, which referred to the "glorification" of terrorism. The nations of the world were clearly prepared to accept the word when they voted to adopt a resolution that incorporates it. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the ingenuity of his drafting in respect of the latest group of amendments that he has tabled, but by omitting any reference to glorifying or glorification they do nothing to deal with the points to which I have just referred.
	I will speak at greater length on the need to tackle those who would encourage terrorism through glorifying it, but we are all familiar with the strength of those arguments. Indeed, the arguments are so strong that, on Tuesday 14 March, amendments were tabled for consideration in the Commons which would have inserted alternative formulae for the disputed passages but would have used the word "glorifying". The amendments were tabled in the names of both Opposition parties. Though they were subsequently withdrawn, it does suggest that the objections to glorification are not as strong as some of the rhetoric suggests, as does the fact that noble Lords opposite on the Conservative Front Bench—with a couple of unexplained exceptions—abstained during your Lordships' last vote on this issue on 28 February.
	I should remind your Lordships of the point that I made when we last discussed this issue. In the oral Statement made in another place on 2 February, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a commitment to publish a draft terrorism Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the first half of next year. That Bill will of course cover matters such as control orders and the outcome of the review of the definition of terrorism being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. However, it can go further than that and provide an opportunity to look at all of our terrorism legislation. The phrase my right honourable friend used on 2 February 2006 (at col. 483 of the Official Report) was "pruning and close examination" of our terrorism legislation. That could, of course, provide an opportunity to see how the glorification provisions have worked and whether any amendment to them is required. I know that noble Lords opposite asked me to undertake to do that on the last occasion. I was happy to indicate that, but I am even happier that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary underscored the comments made by me during the debate on this issue in the other place.
	Rather than developing the arguments about the glorification provisions themselves—which, if I may say so, have been repeated on so many occasions that the words ad nauseam come to mind; but I could not of course say that because your Lordships' contributions are always so delicious to enjoy—I should like to offer some observations about the constitutional position of this House and the relationship between this House and another place. This House, as I mentioned recently when we were discussing another Bill, should function as a revising Chamber. It can ask the other place to reconsider certain provisions in proposed legislation. No one can doubt that there are occasions when legislation is made significantly stronger by the scrutiny it receives here.
	But this House should not seek to oppose the will of the elected Chamber for too long, or on too weak a basis. I should remind your Lordships that when the other place's wording was overturned on 28 February, the majority against the Government in your Lordships' House was only four. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition's Front Bench, as I indicated, did not vote on that occasion. It then returned to another place. It is worth reflecting on the passage of these provisions in the other House.
	There have been four votes on this issue in another place. In Committee, on 2 November 2005, the other place supported the glorification provisions by a majority of 16. On Report, on 9 November 2005, it voted for glorification by a majority of 25. At Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 15 February, it voted for glorification by a majority of 38. Most recently, at the second Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 16 March, it voted for glorification by a majority of 59 votes. So, there is a trend that one sees clearly established there. Each time the Commons has voted on this, the number in favour of including provisions on glorification has gone up. The other place has reconsidered this matter and has strengthened its position. It is now time for us to listen to the views of the elected House.
	At this point, I should perhaps invite your Lordships to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in our debate on 28 February. I know that the noble Lord always chooses his words with care. He said that,
	"on this occasion"—
	that is the last occasion—
	"your Lordships' House should send this matter back to the House of Commons for one further consideration".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 144.]
	The other place has now had the advantage of that "one further consideration" and, in the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be able to tell us that he is true to his word and, although we can have an interesting debate, this will end here today. That was my hope and expectation, so I was a little surprised to see the amendments that he was asking us to consider, but I know that the noble Lord does not like to disappoint.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the matter should be sent back to the other place. The other place has had that further consideration. I for one am glad that it has done so. The arguments in favour of referring to "glorification" are in the Government's view totally convincing and the constitutional duty of this House to listen to the other place is equally clear.
	We believe that following the last vote on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made it clear that he was interested to hear about the undertaking, to see how it would go. I hope that with this fulsome explanation I have entirely satisfied him, to such an extent that he need not trouble to rise from his seat, if we divide on this. He and all those on his Benches can sit in great comfort while the Bill goes through safely on its way to another place. With that, and in great expectation, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Goodhart: rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, Amendment A1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 31, do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 34, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 34B and 34D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 34E to 34J in lieu—
	34E Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section "indirect encouragement" means the making of a statement which does not expressly encourage the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences but which is likely to convey to persons who become aware of the statement the inference that they should commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences."
	34F Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this section, matter that is likely to be understood by a person as indirectly encouraging the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism means any matter which is likely to convey to that person the inference that he should commit, prepare or instigate such acts."
	34G Clause 3, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
	"(8A) The reference in subsection (8) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is likely to be understood as conveying the inference that persons becoming aware of that statement, article or record should commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences."
	34H Clause 21, page 19, leave out lines 29 to 39 and insert—
	"(a) include the indirect encouragement of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences (as defined in section 20 of the Terrorism Act 2006); or
	(b) are carried out in a manner which ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such encouragement."
	34J Page 19, leave out lines 41 and 42"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Terrorism Bill is now coming back from the other place for the second round of ping-pong. I have put down a series of new amendments in lieu. They have not been put down because of any intrinsic merit, but to make it clear that while we wish to get rid of the references to "glorification" in the Bill, we are also anxious to avoid deadlock.
	We have no wish to force the Government to use the Parliament Act on a Bill that contains a number of useful anti-terrorist provisions, even if we were in a position to do so, which I doubt we are today. I note in particular the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who regularly attends when there is likely to be a serious vote from the Conservative Benches.
	We remain deeply concerned with the Government's insistence on including "glorification" in the Bill somewhere or somehow. I briefly want to explore why the Government want it and whether there is any reason for doing so beyond saving face following their commitment to making the glorification of terrorism an offence.
	There are two possible interpretations involved in including references to glorification in the Bill in the form that the Government have done. The first is the meaning most likely to be applied by the court—that glorification is simply given as one example of the way in which terrorism can be indirectly encouraged. It does not, therefore, extend the meaning of indirect encouragement. If so, it follows that no one will be convicted who would not have been convicted simply on the basis of indirect encouragement even if there was no express reference to "glorification" in the Bill. In that case the references to "glorification" would be harmless, but also pointless.
	The second interpretation is more seriously worrying—that the references to glorification add something to the meaning of indirect encouragement that would not be there otherwise. So people could be convicted of an offence that would not have been an offence within the ordinary meaning of the words "indirect encouragement".
	If that is the correct interpretation, it follows that there is enormous uncertainty about the effect of the Bill. One would have to consider what is the meaning in the context of "glorification", and what is the meaning in the context of the word "emulate". How can it be possible to justify treating as a criminal offence glorification that does not in the ordinary meaning of the word amount to indirect encouragement of terrorism? Would that not be an unacceptable restraint on freedom of expression? If the second interpretation is correct, the references to glorification would not be harmless; I believe that they would be unacceptable.
	In moving her Motion, the Minister has not made the position altogether clear and I hope that she will be able to give a more direct answer to my questions when she winds up. If she is saying, "You have nothing to worry about because glorification here is simply given as an example and it does not extend the meaning of indirect encouragement of terrorism", that would of course be welcome. The trouble is that, even so, it is not for her to decide on the interpretation. The inclusion of references to glorification make the second interpretation possible. As long as that is a possibility, many people will fear that any statement that they make will be an offence under the Bill if, for example, it expresses sympathy with the activities, past or present, of others that fall within the extremely broad definition of terrorism, even though that statement carries no implication that anyone becoming aware of it should go and do likewise.
	Because of the possibility that that could be the case, the inclusion of references to glorification is not just unnecessary but harmful. The Government should recognise that and accept the removal of the references. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Amendment A1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 31, do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 34, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 34B and 34D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 34E to 34J in lieu.—(Lord Goodhart.)

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Baroness's concern about the time that we have spent on this and the fact that we are going over much of the same ground, but I hope that she will feel that there was something to be gained from our proceedings when we last considered this matter, even if it was only the amusement or astonishment of those who read the Division List and found that I was in the Division Lobby with the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That suggests that there is a rather wide coalition against Her Majesty's Government on this point. However, each of us was looking at it from a slightly different point of view.
	For my part, I am still not happy about the definition even of terrorism that we use. There is a great deal of work to be done on better defining terrorism. Like the noble Baroness, I have no taste for those who glorify terrorism, but I do not think that she dealt terribly well with the points which I put to her the last time that we discussed this. Many of us feel that the celebration of the Easter Rising of 1916 comes pretty close to the glorification of terrorism. That leaves a lot of us unhappy. At the other end of the spectrum, I notice that a film is shortly to be released that has as its theme a masked desperado who commits an enormous number of terrorist acts, finishing up in the blowing up of Parliament at the end of the film. Is that glorification of terrorism, or is it just rather silly fiction? I know that the Attorney-General will have the sole right of instituting a prosecution under those provisions.
	In a way, that makes me even more uneasy. It gives people the feeling that some people will be able to glorify some sorts of terrorism and some people will not, although there might be no difference in what is in the legislation, but there would be a difference in what was in the mind of—I will not say the Attorney-General—any attorney.
	However, for what it is worth, I would say to the noble Baroness that I recognise when we have kicked this around for long enough and when we have tramped through the Lobbies for long enough, and so I will not be tramping through a Lobby today.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may say a couple of things very briefly. I have a feeling that this will be the end of the matter in this House. But something still worries me, on which I have not been properly reassured. Although the Attorney-General will have to give his fiat before any prosecution, I am worried that complaints will be made to the police—perhaps on matters that other people will consider trivial—and the police will immediately start an investigation. Before we know where we are people will be taken to the police station and interviewed, as many have been under previous legislation. I will not go into all the cases that have appeared in the newspapers, but the author Lynette Burrows said that she did not believe that male homosexuals should foster children, and then had the police on the telephone to her. That is what worries me. Can the noble Baroness give the assurance that the police will be given guidelines, so that this is treated as a very serious matter and not a triviality?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. As others have said, we have all spoken a great deal about this matter when we have debated it in this House. I should like to make a few points about the importance of including "glorification" in the Bill. First, as the Minister said in moving the Motion, "glorification" is the word used in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 of 14 September 2005, which the UK sponsored and supported very strongly. I will not quote it because I am sure that noble Lords have heard it often enough to know what I am talking about.
	Secondly, there are loopholes in the existing laws, even if they are small. In my opinion, they would be continued even if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—

Lord Goodhart: My Lords—

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am just about to say what the loophole is. Perhaps I may give way after that. Present laws of incitement do not cover everything. The best example of that is the placard about the "magnificent four" in the demonstration in London. As I said before, you do not have to be a lawyer to know that you could not really bring an incitement charge on someone talking about the "magnificent four". But that is definitely, without doubt, glorification of an act that none of us would want to see glorified.

Lord Goodhart: Does the noble Baroness agree that it could also properly be regarded as—whether or not the word "glorification" is used—the encouragement, direct or indirect, of terrorism? If so, why would the word "glorification" be needed as well?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The word "magnificent" definitely is glorification. I would not put it past clever lawyers to get round saying that "magnificent four" did not mean anything about encouraging terrorism. Thirdly, there seems to be expressed a doubt about the meaning of glorification. We have heard it again and again, especially from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It seems to me that only lawyers have a problem about knowing the meaning of glorification, because in Glasgow we know very well what glorification means. I can never get over how lawyers can make something straightforward very complicated. Speaking on the phraseology concerning glorification in the Bill, as it came to your Lordships, the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said that he considered it a proportionate response to:
	"the real and present danger of young radically minded people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts, wrapped in a religious or quasi-religious context".
	He also believed that it was human-rights compatible. That is from paragraph 23 of his report of 6 October 2005.
	I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said in his intervention. I just happen to think that the wording makes it very clear that it is about encouraging others to emulate terrorist acts "in existing circumstances". It seems to me clear that this legislation is about glorification that encourages others today to commit terrorism in today's context. That probably will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, but that is where I diverge slightly from him. To take out glorification would send the wrong signal to the country at a time when it is important that Parliament sends out a clear signal that no one—by carefully avoiding direct incitement—can continue to encourage others, especially the young, to commit terrorism. I would ask the House to support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, it is not often from these Benches that one supports what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has said. But I do—very much so.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I can only say to the right reverend Prelate, "Welcome to a sinner come to repentance".

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: And, my Lords, in this season of the year, there is forgiveness as well.
	One of our problems is the definition of language. The noble Lord's helpful remarks about looking at the definition of terrorism might point to the issue that lies behind the problems we have with the word "glorification". I share the view expressed around the House that this is not the time to pursue this matter further. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear that. What do we mean when we use this language? Are those who are fighting in Iraq insurgents or terrorists? How do we define the IRA? These are difficult questions.
	It needs to be placed on the record, as we think about what is not a very tidy use of language—the use of "glorification"—that, when we on these Benches are engaged in giving glory to God, that is an expression of the heart and of the feeling of the community, and the consequences of that cannot be spelt out in terms of the actions that flow from it. There is looseness in the language here, which I think the courts will have some difficulty with. Nevertheless, at this moment in our community, we need some sense of coherence and unity in the face of the perceived sense of threats that there are around our society. Now is the time to bring this matter to a conclusion and to trust our courts to help us to give some common-sense definition to the language we use.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is precisely for the reason that the right reverend Prelate referred to that we object to the use of this word "glorification". Why should it be left to the courts to interpret words like this? Why cannot this Bill set out quite clearly what it intends to punish with a sentence of imprisonment of up to seven years?
	I do not know what glorification means in Glasgow, but let us look at what it means in the Bill. Clause 1(4) states:
	"For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which . . . glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences".
	It does not attempt to be an exhaustive definition of what is indirect encouragement and it refers to acts committed at any time in the past and in any place in the world.
	Turning to Clause 21, we actually have a definition of what glorification is. This definition does not apply to Clause 1; it applies only in relation to Clause 21:
	"In this section . . . 'glorification' includes any form of praise or celebration".
	So the definition of the word "glorification" here is not meant to be comprehensive—simply an example is given. We therefore come back to the point that the word is used to refer to acts committed at any time and in any place in the world, whether going back 2,000 years or moving 2,000 years into the future, and "any form of praise". Nothing could be vaguer than that.
	I follow what was said by the right reverend Prelate: we ought not to pass criminal legislation that leaves it to the courts to decide what the definition means and, further, leaves it to the Attorney-General to decide whether in a particular case a prosecution should be brought or to a chief constable to decide that in a particular case an inquiry should be launched. That is why we have tabled these clear definitions in my noble friend's amendments, which would not leave it to the courts but would allow this Parliament to decide what the criminal law should be.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It seems that he is saying that, in his view, the legislation as drafted would include the celebration of the Easter Uprising as an act of glorification of terrorism, which makes it extremely embarrassing when our ambassador goes to such an event in the United States.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have made the point before that it refers to William Wallace in Scotland, to the Welsh nationalists in 1937 who blew up the bombing range in the Lleyn peninsula, to the Easter rebellion, and to any movement throughout the world—as I said, this applies to the whole world—where a movement or organisation takes up arms against the recognised government. We may support that movement, but in these terms we would still be glorifying it.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene briefly. Surely when we talk about the present circumstances the point is that something like the Easter uprising might well be covered if the IRA as of now was asking people to emulate it. That is what makes the difference; it is not about the ANC, William Wallace or any of the other examples given by the noble Lord.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have had the experience of defending an IRA person who was moved not by the Easter rebellion, but by the words of Robert Emmet on the scaffold in 1797. If you take anywhere at any time, you can see how a person may be incited by stories from the past to commit terrorist acts. Consequently, the Easter rebellion is certainly still a matter that could be—if the Attorney-General of the day so decided—the subject of a criminal prosecution and investigation.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is not the practical reason for this Bill the wish of Parliament to ensure that people who incite terrorism are brought to justice? It has emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service, for instance, might find it very difficult to decide, and deliberate for many months, whether somebody on a charge of pure glorification did in fact need to be brought to court. It seems to me that what matters is making the offence more precise so that it is easier for the law to operate against the people against whom we wish it to operate. "Glorification" is fine, but I cannot see why there is a problem in identifying within that what precisely people might do in order to deserve that epithet—whether they have incited, in what way and so forth. It seems to me common sense that we should make the offence as precise as possible and that we do not leave the unfortunate Crown Prosecution Service or, indeed, the police unable to prosecute because it is too vague.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate today but, after listening to it, I thought that I would give noble Lords a practical example of what my noble friend is putting forward. Three weeks ago in Belfast, the PSNI had information that an event was going to happen in one of the paramilitary bars. The police surrounded the bar—they got great publicity out of that. They found a bunch of men dressed up with masks and dark sunglasses and carrying plastic guns. The men, who were members of the UDA, were practising for an event to take place the next night. They were arrested and taken away. Whether they will ever be prosecuted is debatable, but that one act gave so much confidence back to the community that the police were prepared to tackle that kind of thing that it was of immeasurable benefit. So many incidents of that kind have happened in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and people have asked, "Where were the police?" My noble friend is trying to achieve the same thing. The measure might not result in a prosecution—we all know that lawyers can talk and do what they like—but, at the end of the day, it would give back confidence to communities who are being held hostage by these people.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am very sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, but it seems to me that the incident to which she referred could perfectly well have been caught under the existing law on incitement to violence and on the proposed law in this Bill about direct and indirect encouragement. So on those grounds I support the amendment.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord says but the event I mentioned took place on private property; it did not take place on the street. The very fact that the police acted was of enormous benefit to the community. That is the point I am trying to make.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness anticipated that I had followed her instructions in her opening remarks by remaining in a sedentary position. I think that my response to that is, in the words of a famous English novelist of the middle half of the 20th century, "Up to a point".
	As I understand it, from the events in another place last Thursday, and from what the noble Baroness has said today, the Government are essentially making five points about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, in effect, the amendments that we tabled at an earlier stage.
	The first is that our definitions—if I may refer to them collectively—provide an exhaustive definition of indirect encouragement and not an illustrative one, with the implication that it is more desirable to have an illustrative definition than a comprehensive definition. Secondly, in any case, the use of the words "describe or refer", which we have always preferred to "glorification", means that the Bill would not catch glorification. Thirdly, if we were at this stage to expunge the expression "glorification", the courts would conclude that the expression "describe or refer" would not include glorification. I see that the noble Baroness nods, so she is with me so far. The fourth point made by the Government, in another place and in your Lordships' House, is that glorification is in the manifesto. The final point is that it is a question of which House should prevail.
	Perhaps I can make some comments, reasonably telegraphically, about each one of those. First, on the exhaustive definition versus illustration, it is quite true that our definition seeks to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but in law that is the whole point of a definition. It should seek to cover all the issues and it is up to the courts, armed with a definition, to do their best to ensure that a jury understands clearly what the law is.
	The Government do not purport to provide any definition of "indirect encouragement". In Clause 1(4), they simply present us with a single illustration—the illustration of glorification—emphasising in all the speeches that have been made by Ministers that, of course, there are many other illustrations that could influence a court in deciding whether someone is indirectly encouraging or not. We regard that as deeply defective.
	First, glorification is a monumentally imprecise concept and there is nothing in the interpretation section of the Bill that undermines that assertion in any way. Indirect encouragement is not like the famous illustration of a duck. If it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. That is not the nature of indirect encouragement. The courts need real guidance on what it means.
	Secondly, in my submission, even if glorification appeared in the Bill as a definition, it would be too narrow. There may be circumstances in which terrorism is merely described by a speaker or referred to by a speaker where the public are likely to infer that that which is described or referred to is conduct that should be emulated by them. The interpretation that we and the Liberal Democrats have consistently put to your Lordships' House throughout the passage of the Bill is that glorification is too narrow.
	The other defect of the Government's approach was extremely well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is not consistent with the rule of law to deprive the courts of a clear definition of law. Indeed, it is inconsistent with Article 7 of the Convention on Human Rights. Potentially, an even more serious defect concerns the behaviour of the prosecutor, the DPP. The fact that there is no definition, but just a single illustration which is not comprehensive, gives the DPP enormous scope to decide whether or not to prosecute. It is essentially an unfettered discretion. The Bill replaces the rule of law by an unfettered, absolute discretion to be exercised by the prosecutorial authorities. That is deeply undesirable, especially in an area like this.
	I shall deal briefly with the remaining issues that the Government have raised. From what I have already said, I hope your Lordships will conclude that the words in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or in the amendments that we have tabled in the past, plainly capture glorification, and that because we have said that, time and time again, there can be no question but that the courts would also conclude that "refer or describe" includes glorification.
	The manifesto has been covered so many times that I hesitate to remind the Minister that her point about the word "glorification" appearing in that document has no foundation. It is true that the words "glorification" and "condoning" appeared in the manifesto, but they describe an offence. By the time the Bill came along, "condoning" had disappeared and "glorification" was merely an illustration of a new offence of indirect encouragement. The Government have no basis for saying that your Lordships' House is bound because this is a manifesto matter.
	Finally, there is the question of the relative role of the two Houses. I accept that we are a scrutinising House and that, in normal circumstances and after doing our best to persuade the Government otherwise, we should concede. There are of course occasions when we have to stand our ground.
	At the early stages of the Bill, I had thought that it would come to that, but two things influenced me to think otherwise. First, if this Bill is subjected to the Parliament Act, it will be delayed for nine months, and we need this Bill. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to reconsider next year all the measures on terrorism that are on the statute book and to introduce a new, comprehensive measure to replace them. That will give your Lordships an opportunity to consider a range of issues that have given us deep discomfort during the passage of this Bill: the definition of terrorism, the use of the word "glorification" and so on.
	Bearing that in mind, and if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, chooses to put this matter to a vote, I shall recommend to my colleagues that they abstain.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall say straight away what considerable pleasure the noble Lord's last sentence has given me, if no other Member of this House. I hope that I can be as telegraphic as he has been in dealing with some of the points raised. The noble Lord accurately understood the Government's points and expounded on them with great clarity and precision. I can but say that I agree with him. Those points are right, but the qualifications that he made afterwards were, I regret, fundamentally flawed.
	I shall take up one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that glorification was supposed to be a stand-alone matter in the manifesto. Noble Lords will know that we have said that glorification is a species of indirect encouragement and is therefore illustrative. Therefore, the manifesto holds true. We have had that debate on a number of occasions therefore perhaps I need say no more.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we hope that we have made clear that glorification is an example of indirect encouragement and is included in the Bill to guide the courts, as has been the case in previous legislation. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale that the need to include it for illustrative purposes is clear and that the ordinary man in the street—we old-fashioned lawyers used to say, "the man on the Clapham omnibus"—would understand it with the greatest of ease.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that there are of course always difficulties. He was right to talk about the difficulties of language, but, on this occasion, that difficulty is not so great that the courts of our country could not deal with it. Quite often, whether it can be inferred that direct or indirect encouragement has taken place will be a question of fact. It will be a question of fact also whether, on the basis of the facts disclosed to the court at the time, acts of terrorism were thereby glorified. That, therefore, makes precision and rigidity of definition difficult, because it would fail to address the mischief that this is intended to cure. I know that that is not the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and am therefore happy to assist him and the House in identifying why the flaws of that drafting would not meet the mischief that we have collectively identified as needing to be addressed.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who asked about the guidance to be given to the police, that we take this matter seriously and are clear that the police must not use these powers lightly and disproportionately. We have every confidence that they will exercise due discretion in the operation of all new powers the Bill confers upon them; a Home Office circular will be issued to coincide with its commencement.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that one of the absolute joys of this House is the breadth and oddity of alliances that, from time to time, take place as people go through the Lobbies. There are many Pauline conversions as a Bill goes through, and I am satisfied that the noble Lord's conversion will be such that he can rest easy on his Bench, and not take the exercise that would otherwise be forthcoming.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister should not think that she has convinced me; she has just worn me down.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will take the victory any way it comes.
	We have thoroughly explored this issue. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says, but I also listen carefully to what my noble friend Lady Blood says about the possible impact of these sorts of statements, and the reassurance they can give to communities that we are on their side and not that of the terrorists. We are clearly saying that these things are wrong and should not be tolerated. That has some little importance, too. We would be remiss to forget that there are circumstances where some feel that clear encouragement has been given for people to commit acts of terror. It is incumbent on all of us to do what little we can to ensure that we do not compound that.
	I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, having taken the temperature of this debate and this House, will be satisfied that he has more than discharged his duty—a heavy burden that often rests on his shoulders—and will not trouble the House to express itself with the clarity it has often had to in the past. We can now let this Bill go safely on its way.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am sorry to interrupt—some Members have lessened their opposition because there is going to be a comprehensive Bill in a year's time. In the light of our discussion, will there be consultation with all the political parties—and, in this House, the Cross Benches—before a new Bill is published? I hope she thinks that that would be sensible.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I am paraphrasing my right honourable friend the Home Secretary correctly, but he has already indicated that he is open to further discussions on this matter. Noble Lords will know that we do business in this House by trying to talk to each other, sometimes quite trenchantly, before matters come back. I am sure the normal practice will prevail.
	The new Bill, which my right honourable friend has mentioned and I have confirmed will be forthcoming to this House, gives us an opportunity to look again at a number of issues, not least the definition of "terrorism". The Government have already indicated our belief that the current definition is sound, but are more than happy to await the outcome of the deliberations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to see whether he gives further advice for us to look at. We will have that opportunity.
	If, by the time we have had experience of the Bill, there are difficulties in relation to glorification, as I have indicated—and it was confirmed by my right honourable friend in the other place—we shall have the opportunity to look at that again, too. I know that that is one of the matters that have given noble Lords opposite the confidence to say that they can take their ease at the moment. I absolutely understand that if and when the matter comes back, we shall doubtless have another enjoyable, vigorous, lengthy debate.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have had a debate that, although somewhat shorter than on previous occasions, was still undoubtedly full. I took the opposite view from the noble Baroness's in that I welcomed everything in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, except the final sentence.
	Let me make it clear at the start that we are not trying to kick this Bill into touch and force the Government to rely on the Parliament Act. All we are doing today is asking the House of Commons to consider the new amendments tabled in my name. I have to say that I remain concerned about the inclusion of the word "glorification" in the Bill, and the noble Baroness has not done anything to reduce my fears on the matter. She said that the references to glorification were merely an illustration, but went on to say that they were needed as guidance—no doubt, guidance to the courts. That carries the implication that the addition of the word "glorification" will mean that people who would not have been convicted merely on the basis of indirect encouragement of terrorism will be convicted under this Bill. That leaves me at least as worried as I was in the beginning.
	The concern is not to any great extent that people who should not be convicted will be convicted. My concern is that there will be an inhibition of legitimate expression and debate. That concerns us very seriously. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, and the expressions from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the right reverend Prelate, I cannot say that we are expecting to win a vote this time. Indeed, I did not expect to win a vote on the previous occasion. I am even less confident this time.
	Nevertheless, I believe that we need to put on record our opposition to the inclusion of the word "glorification", which we believe will cause significant trouble over the next few years. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. A1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 172.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion A agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	It is not quite eight years since this House debated the Bill to establish the National Assembly for Wales. It is very sad that Lord Williams of Mostyn, who opened that debate, is no longer with us. He is still greatly missed. On a happier note, many noble Lords who contributed then are here today. I am glad that from all sides of the House immense experience is being brought to bear in the consideration of this Bill.
	Since the first meeting of the Assembly in Cardiff in May 1999, a great deal has been achieved. The National Assembly for Wales owes its existence to a narrow referendum victory, but it has earned acceptance among the public and public opinion in Wales. The present and the future for democracy in Wales—close to the people, open, forward-looking—is given architectural expression in the new Assembly building. I congratulate our noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside who has given us a modern Welsh icon.
	The identity of Wales itself has been strengthened by devolution. Institutions of all kinds have recognised the distinctiveness of Welsh structures and policies and have adapted their own organisations in response. In 1998, fears were expressed that Wales would lose out economically as a result of devolution. Quite the reverse has happened. Over 100,000 more people in Wales are in employment now than in 1999. Exports have increased faster than in the UK as a whole. Fears were also expressed that the Assembly would lack policy ideas. In fact, it was in Wales that children first had a Children's Commissioner and it is in Wales that they will have their first Commissioner for Older People. In every field the Welsh Assembly Government can evidence their own made-for-Wales strategies.
	Above all, perhaps, fears were expressed that devolution would weaken Wales's ties with the rest of the UK and damage the Union. Those fears have proved groundless. More young people see themselves as Welsh first and foremost, but support for independence for Wales has dwindled. Indeed, a recent ICM poll showed that only 16 per cent of the population of Wales now favours independence, while opposition to the Assembly has slumped to a mere 20 per cent. Devolution is now integral to Welsh public life.
	At the same time, experience has shown what is needed to enable the Assembly to build on the firm foundations laid since it was established. That is why the Government's 2005 general election manifesto promised that we would develop democratic devolution by way of three specific commitments: first, to legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers; secondly, to improve the accountability of Ministers by ending the confusing corporate status of the Assembly; and thirdly, to prevent candidates standing on both the list and in a constituency, in order to make all candidates genuinely accountable to the electorate.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will anticipate my question. If this is good enough for Wales, why is it not good enough for Scotland?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that question will be debated at enormous length as the Bill goes through the House. To raise it now in my opening address and discuss it would distract us from the work in hand.
	The Bill delivers on those three manifesto commitments. It carries forward most of the substance of the 1998 Act, but does so with important changes made in the light of experience. It builds on what has been achieved while recognising the need for the Assembly to be able to achieve its goals more quickly and more effectively. The first important change is to replace the existing Assembly with a separate executive and legislature. Since 2002, the Assembly Ministers and the staff working for them have been known as the "Welsh Assembly Government". Within the constraint of still being legally one corporate body, the government arm and the legislative arm have increasingly been operating as separate entities.
	The legal separation of the two was one of the recommendations of the Richard commission appointed by the Welsh Assembly Government to review the operation of the devolution arrangements. I should like at this point to pay a warm tribute—it is a great pleasure to do so—to my noble friend Lord Richard for his achievement in producing a most thorough and most influential report. He has served Wales with wisdom and vision.
	I probably do not need to dwell on the issue of separation, since we all agree that it is necessary. It is worth noting that the vast bulk of the Bill relates to the separation. Some 93 clauses of the Bill are re-enacted with only minor modifications from the 1998 Act. A further 47 clauses have been included to give effect to the separation. I welcome the fact that so much of the Bill commands cross-party support. The Bill will set up the Welsh Assembly Government as an entity in their own right. The current executive functions of the Assembly will transfer to the Welsh Ministers on separation. An Assembly Commission, similar in nature to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, will be set up to work on behalf of the 60 Assembly Members. The Assembly itself will be given much greater freedom to determine the way in which the legislature should operate.
	The second significant change is to the electoral arrangements. The Government believe that it is fundamental that a constituency member, of whatever party, is elected to represent the interests of all their constituents. At the same time the Government recognise, to the benefit of other parties in Wales, that a degree of proportional representation is necessary in order to ensure that the outcome of the election properly and fairly reflects the will of the voters.
	The Government therefore believe that the current additional member system, which combines both the constituency link and an element of proportionality, has served the people of Wales well. Nevertheless, there have been some unforeseen and undesirable consequences. Because constituency candidates often also stand on their parties' regional lists, it is possible for candidates who are defeated in a constituency election nevertheless to emerge victorious as regional members. In Clwyd West at the 2003 election, this resulted in no fewer than three of the defeated constituency candidates re-emerging as regional members.
	Moreover, there is nothing to stop regional members from targeting the constituency in which they were defeated, to the exclusion of other parts of the region they are elected to represent. No fewer than 15 regional members have located their offices in the constituency in which they were previously defeated. Dual candidacy is confusing for the electorate. If they have rejected a candidate at the ballot box, how can that candidate still win in the same election? Voters have a right to reject a particular candidate.
	Furthermore, the targeting of constituencies by regional members undermines the very purpose of regional representation. The role of regional members is to represent all the people in their region, rather than targeting the bulk of their work and resources on roughly one eighth of it.
	That is why the Government are modifying the additional member system—retaining both the clear constituency link and the element of proportionality, but removing the anomaly of dual candidacy which provides defeated constituency candidates with a safety net and denies the voters a proper say. The ban on dual candidacy will mean that candidates will have to choose between standing for a constituency or standing for a region; and that applies equally to all parties and all candidates.
	The Government—

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I noticed that the Government in the other place have circulated, in support of the argument the noble Lord has just been advancing, a list of quotations, which includes two from me. I simply make it clear that these were taken out of context and that the quotations I gave were in the context of our going for the single transferable vote and multi-member seats and not for the solution that is in the Bill. It is a bit of a sleight of hand that I should be quoted in aid of a provision which I do not agree with and, indeed, had the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, been pressing for this to be happening in Scotland, the result would have been, in the first Scottish Parliament election, that the Conservative Party, all of whose constituency candidates had to be elected through the list, would have had no seats at all. That is not a system I would have recommended.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that I have no sleights of hand. I have not read the quotations he refers to; I have not seen them. But I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that I have been interrupted twice, both by Scotsmen, when we are talking about the government of Wales.
	The Government are grateful to the Constitution Committee for its recognition that the proposal to ban dual candidacy is a manifesto commitment. We also note the committee's recommendation that the Government should set out clearly what alternative approaches were considered and why these options were rejected in favour of the dual candidacy ban.
	The Government agree that it is important for the House to be informed on this point, and we therefore intend to address this recommendation in detail in our response to the committee's report.
	I now turn to the Assembly's legislative powers. In doing so I should like to acknowledge and welcome the substantial contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and his committee have made in considering the constitutional issues raised by the Bill. We shall take very careful note of all their observations.
	I very much welcome the Constitution Committee's clear conclusion that,
	"the delegation of law making powers to an elected body is indeed very different from delegating them to Ministers".
	Since 1999, the Assembly has been able to shape much subordinate legislation in a distinctive way so as to give effect to its own policies. However, it has remained dependent on the timetable and priorities for legislation in this Parliament in order to achieve anything which required either changes to primary legislation or new provision.
	Moreover, the approach to giving the Assembly legislative powers has been inconsistent. Some Bills have prescribed a great deal of detail and others have given the Assembly more discretion.
	In June 2005, the Government set out in their White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, a three-stage approach to tackling this issue. The first stage was a commitment to draft parliamentary Bills in a way which gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provisions should be implemented in Wales. These so-called framework powers were a key recommendation of the Richard commission—the famous paragraph 13.2—and were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I pay tribute to him for his work on this.
	Framework powers are not dependent on the passage of this Bill. Indeed, one such provision, Clause 17 of the NHS Redress Bill, has recently completed its passage though this House. However, in recognition of the breadth of framework powers, the Bill includes a provision to ensure that they are exercised not by Welsh Ministers but by the Assembly as a whole following separation.
	The mechanism set out in Part 3 of the Bill is the second stage, developing the existing devolution settlement, which was approved by referendum in 1997. Parliament will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to give the Assembly power to legislate by Assembly measure on particular, clearly defined matters. The Assembly will be able to request that competence on its own initiative by seeking an Order in Council.
	I have made available and placed in the Library of the House information on how the Government envisage the mechanism in Part 3 of the Bill would work. The Government attach great importance to Parliament having the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of any proposed Order in Council seeking to grant the Assembly legislative competence. The papers placed in the Library include examples of the memorandums that would accompany any proposed Order in Council. I am fully aware that a number of noble Lords are concerned that they should have a proper opportunity to contribute to this process. It is of course for this House to consider how that may best be done.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee in another place and the relevant Assembly committee may also be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is the Government's hope that such scrutiny can be arranged in a concurrent and complementary way. The Constitution Committee has made some constructive proposals on this issue and I am sure that the House will wish to consider them most carefully. In this House, statutory instruments are also sometimes considered in Grand Committee, which allows any Member to contribute.
	These are all options. I stress again that this is a matter for the House to determine. An Order in Council would only have the effect of altering the Assembly's legislative competence. The substance of any changes to the law would be contained in the Assembly measures passed by the Assembly itself. Clause 97 of the Bill sets out the minimum Assembly scrutiny procedures, which proposed Assembly measures must generally undergo before they can be passed by the Assembly and then be enacted.
	Part 3 represents not a fundamental change to the current devolution settlement, but rather a development of the settlement that will make it easier for the Assembly to deliver for the people of Wales. Just as at present, it would be for Parliament to determine what additional powers the Assembly may require. While the Assembly will be given greater discretion over the detail of Welsh legislation, Parliament will remain in charge. The development of the devolution settlement will help the Assembly break through the legislative logjam at Westminster. The Assembly has to wait for many years in many cases for its requests for primary legislation to be met. This has been the case even with non-controversial legislation such as the Bill to create a single public services ombudsman for Wales.
	Part 3 of the Bill therefore continues the process of giving the Assembly greater discretion to legislate on matters that are within devolved areas of responsibility. It also allows the initiative to come from Wales to seek measure-making powers. However, these powers will be granted only where Parliament agrees that this should be the case.
	Part 4 of the Bill provides for the Assembly to acquire full law-making powers over all devolved subjects without further recourse to Parliament. This is the third stage, as set out in the White Paper. However, because this is a fundamental constitutional change, the Bill ensures that it can take place only if it has been approved by the people of Wales in a referendum. Clause 102 sets out clearly that the referendum is to be whether the Assembly Act provisions should come into force.
	In this way we hope to settle for a generation the distracting debate over the extent of the Assembly's powers. By the provision of a mechanism for achieving primary powers, the onus will be on the supporters of change to win the argument. Instead of a constant debate about the Assembly's constitutional arrangements, the challenge will instead be to deliver the right policies for the people of Wales and to rise to the challenge set out in the Bill.
	Supporters of primary powers for the Assembly have argued for a direct move to primary powers, as recommended by the Richard commission. The Government do not believe that such a proposal would command general support among the people of Wales at this time. As the recent ICM poll showed, support for devolution has consolidated since 1999, and a growing number of people support greater powers for the Assembly, but supporters of full law-making powers are still in a minority. In the Government's view, the day when a referendum on full law-making powers would pass is still some years away.
	The Government therefore believe that it is right to proceed with a referendum on primary powers only when there is broad cross-party consensus in favour of such a move. That is why the Bill provides that a referendum could be triggered only with the support of two-thirds of all Assembly Members and of both Houses of Parliament. An unsuccessful referendum on primary powers would do profound damage to the whole devolution settlement. It is therefore right that we proceed with caution.
	Parts 3 and 4, together with the changes to the electoral arrangements in Part 1, are clearly the most novel and contentious aspects of the Bill. They are also the provisions that have had the most thorough scrutiny in another place. During more than 27 hours allocated for scrutiny at Committee and Report stages, 19 hours were devoted to those provisions.
	Part 5 contains the financial provisions. Its key provision is in Clause 116, which creates the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That is to ensure that there is a "neutral" account where funds can be held. Welsh Ministers will be able to obtain payments out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund only if they are authorised or deemed to be authorised by Budget resolutions of the Assembly.
	Part 6 contains further necessary provisions, relating, for example, to the treatment of public records. It also makes detailed provision for the transition from the current Assembly, as constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998, to a separate executive and legislature. Those changes are to come about for the May 2007 Assembly elections.
	To tackle the problem of low turnout in Assembly elections, the Bill also enables the Assembly Commission to promote awareness of the devolved system of government and of the Assembly elections. This it may do either directly or by making grants to others—in particular, to the Electoral Commission.
	In conclusion, the Bill will enable the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government to serve the people of Wales more effectively. They will have a legislature which can hold the Welsh Assembly Government to account more clearly. They will have an Assembly which can pass laws which are tailored to Welsh needs and developed and debated close to the people whom they are meant to benefit. At the same time, the balance of authority between Westminster and the Assembly will be maintained, with Parliament being the ultimate arbiter.
	I finish with a short poem by that great Welsh poet, R S Thomas. It was first published in 1946 in the magazine Wales, edited by Keidrych Rhys. I read it so that we can compare Thomas's bleak and desolate vision of Wales at that time with the self-confidence and vitality of modern-day Wales. Appropriately, it is entitled, "The Old Language".
	"England, what have you done to make the speech
	My fathers used a stranger to my lips,
	An offence to the ear, a shackle on the tongue
	That would fit new thoughts to an abiding tune?
	Answer me now. The workshop where they wrought
	Stands idle, and thick dust covers their tools.
	The blue metal of streams, the copper and gold
	Seams in the wood are all unquarried; the leaves'
	Intricate filigree falls, and who shall renew
	Its brisk pattern? When spring wakens the hearts
	Of the young children to sing, what song shall be theirs?"
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Government of Wales Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
	Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his polished presentation of a very unpolished Bill. On the poem by R S Thomas, "The Old Language", I remind the Minister that the Opposition passed the Welsh Language Act 1993, which did a great deal of service to the old language.
	There has been a positive development in my party's thinking and attitude to devolution since the advent of our new leader, David Cameron. This pleases me and my noble friends, because I have long believed that there was considerable scope to improve on the original devolution settlement for Wales. Of course, the Labour Government appear to share that view in that they have now produced the Bill before us, which is the curiously enigmatic—some might even say devious—sequel to the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the outcome of seven years' experience of its operation. It is also the result of extensive consideration, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his commission, whose main recommendations at box 13.5, which might have provided a firmer, more principled basis for legislation, have been influential but have not been substantially accepted by the Government, except for one recommendation on the separation of the executive and the legislature. The Bill was preceded by the White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, which the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined. Some of our own committees have also had a hard look at the Bill. The Constitution Committee is only the latest to report, and I hope that its members will contribute their wisdom to our debates. There is therefore no shortage of background material to assist us in our deliberations.
	As the Minister said, the Bill contains repeats or adaptations of much that was in the 1998 Act, as well as some fresh proposals, such as the separation of the legislature and the executive, which are broadly welcome. There is a cross-party consensus that it is high time that the National Assembly and the Assembly Government ceased to be tarred with the same brush. They should be separated, and should be perceived to be so by the public. Then there are some 24 clauses that are novel and controversial. They are largely contained in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, and deal with the transfer of primary legislative powers to the Assembly.
	As the Explanatory Notes state on page 62:
	"It should be noted that, with minor exceptions . . . the Bill does not itself confer additional legislative powers on the Assembly: rather, it provides a mechanism whereby such powers can be conferred on a case by case basis as appropriate, with Parliamentary consent".
	That is a fair and accurate statement of the Bill's intent, especially in Part 3, but the Government have not always adhered to it. They have claimed much more for the Bill when it suits them. At the Bill's launch on 8 December last year, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would,
	"give the Assembly more powers, more opportunity and more scope to make decisions".
	But your Lordships will be aware that the mechanism to secure those powers is complex and hedged with hurdles. The ultimate guide to the maze, and controller of entries and exits, is the Secretary of State, whose minatory shadow is everywhere in this Bill.
	At times the Bill reads more like a centralising than a devolutionary measure. The fundamental question that many ask is why the Government do not propose a direct grant of primary legislative powers, particularly in the devolved areas of government, as recommended by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Government's answer is that this would require the people's endorsement in a referendum and they do not think that they could win it. As recently as Third Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State, Mr Peter Hain, said:
	"I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; col. 209.]
	That is in spite of the glowing achievements reeled off by the Minister at the start of his speech.
	The Secretary of State's statement read very oddly on the eve of the St David's Day opening of the new Assembly building and the publication of that curious ICM poll for the BBC, which was optimistically interpreted as showing a total of 55 per cent of the 1,000-people sample in favour of a more powerful—39 per cent—or independent—16 per cent—Assembly. Was the Secretary of State genuinely defeatist, which is out of character, in his view of referendum prospects or was his caution an inspired response to the unhappiness of his own Welsh Labour MPs at the prospect of redundancy as more powers passed from Westminster to Cardiff Bay?
	I am not surprised at the Government's lack of confidence, considering the narrowness of the majority in 1997—0.6 per cent—and the Assembly Government's disappointing record of achievement in certain areas since then, especially health. The Assembly's standing with the Welsh electorate is prima facie precarious. The Secretary of State's indications about a referendum and the consequences are indicative of that precariousness.
	In Committee in the other place, the Secretary of State confessed that he was "haunted"—that is the word that he used—by the 1979 referendum, which the Callaghan government lost by four to one. Mr Hain went to say:
	"I am also haunted by the narrowness of the vote in 1997. Unlike 1979, the Labour party was not bitterly divided on the question".
	He might have added that it was supported by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. He went on:
	"I do not think that we should go anywhere near a referendum that could produce those circumstances. That is why I built in carefully a two-thirds vote in the Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/06; col. 1399.]
	The Secretary of State was of course referring to the provision made for a referendum in Part 4 on the grant of primary legislative powers over a broad range of responsibilities without the need for further recourse to Parliament. Two-thirds of Assembly Members and both Houses of Parliament must support the proposal before a referendum on the issue can take place at all. Most people would agree that a positive final outcome to Part 4 is a very distant prospect. However, the Government have not succumbed to their fears and given up entirely on devolution—far from it. As we have heard, they have provided in Part 3 for the National Assembly to gain legislative powers in specific areas by Orders in Council, approved by both Houses.
	The novel procedure by which the Assembly secures and Parliament endorses such orders, bearing in mind that orders are ultimately unamendable, has yet to be satisfactorily defined and refined. There will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed order in draft form and of some explanatory memorandum/documentation, but doubt and uncertainty persist about the precise procedure involved, and its scope and acceptability. I refer noble Lords to col. 168 of the Official Report of the other place on 28 February, if they wish to savour the confusion that still exists.
	The Constitution Committee's eighth report also highlights the staggering complexity of this procedure and the uncertainty attached to it. The ultimate result is intended to be Assembly measures that will have the same force as Acts of Parliament. The Transport (Wales) Bill recently passed by your Lordships has been cited as an illustrative example of what the Government have in mind, as I noted at the time of the Bill's final passage through this House on 14 February.
	My main point now is that it has been established in the other place that the process of devolving primary legislative powers, by Order in Council, is open-ended and seemingly endless. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, described the procedure's possible operation in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. He said:
	"It is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster to ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device".
	It is quite a good device in that sense, because you get a situation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers. He continued:
	"Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff".
	The Father of the House of Commons, the right honourable Alan Williams, referred in Committee to this piecemeal devolution of powers as "salami slicing".
	In short, the very extensive transfer of legislative power that might be achieved after a successful referendum under Part 4 could be reached over time without a referendum by repeated use of the provisions under Part 3—it is as clear as it could be. If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt it, there is a strong argument, consistent with the logic of the Government and the Bill, for having a referendum before the Order in Council procedure for devolving power comes into effect—assuming, of course, that the procedure has parliamentary approval. This would be a referendum not on the continued existence of the Assembly, but on the bestowal of primary legislative powers. The Government may be fearful of the consequences of even a limited referendum of this sort, but the issue will have to be faced sooner or later. The Government have promised a referendum to the electorate under Part 4. Part 3, surely, is not simply a ruse or device to avoid a referendum and to achieve the transfer of powers by other means. That would be blatantly dishonest. I am sure that the Government would not wish to be guilty of that.
	Meanwhile, the Government continue to increase the powers of the Assembly to make subordinate legislation. The NHS Redress Bill, to which the Minister referred, is mentioned on page 5 of the Explanatory Notes as an example of a very broad framework provision; indeed, it attracted the critical attention of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There is no requirement in this Bill for such enabling framework provisions, unpopular as they are with legislators, to have general endorsement. They will have to be debated individually as and when they arrive, but I feel sure that debated they will be.
	Another aspect of the Bill is causing concern, particularly to the smaller parties. It is the proposal to prohibit candidates from standing both in constituencies and on the regional lists that provide the additional Members of the Assembly. They must choose one route to election or the other. As the Labour Party has no regional list Members in Wales, the Government's proposal affects the minority parties most severely and is regarded as a somewhat mean and spiteful tactic to handicap them. The independent Electoral Commission is critical of the Government's proposal, while Sir John Arbuthnott, who examined the issue in Scotland and considered the Welsh advice in that context, found no reason to recommend the change. He said:
	"Preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic. It would place an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of individual candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election".
	Meanwhile, the Government have actually quoted Sir John, as they have quoted the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as being somehow supportive of their line on this.
	We now know that the Government agree with Arbuthnott for Scotland, but not for Wales. Replying to the debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to ban dual candidacy at Scottish parliamentary elections, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, said that,
	"there is no prospect of government support for reopening the Scotland Act for this or any other purpose".—[Official Report, 3/3/06; col. 504.]
	He went on to discourage his noble friend from proceeding further with his Bill. I am bound to say that there is a whiff of inconsistency here. Why should a principle be valid in Scotland but not in Wales?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I, too, detected that whiff of inconsistency. However, as the noble Lord knows, I was not discouraged from pressing ahead with my Bill and I shall continue to do so. I should like to ask the noble Lord, who speaks from the Opposition Benches, why he thinks that the provision will make any difference to the political balance. It will not make any difference to it. All it does is prevent individual candidates from standing for both. The Conservatives can have just as many candidates in constituencies and on the list as they wish. Although it may have been before his time, the noble Lord may recall that it was possible to stand for two constituencies in elections to the House of Commons. I presume that he is not recommending that. It gave the electorate more choice, but it was manifest nonsense. It is also manifest nonsense to stand for the list and for a constituency. This is absolutely right in Wales and I shall support the Bill and this provision enthusiastically. I hope that my noble friends will see that it is wise to do this for other parts of the United Kingdom as well.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to try to reply to him, but the long and short of it is that the system installed by the 1998 Act is now being changed, and it is being changed to what we believe is the disadvantage of the minority parties.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Was the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, not given quite clearly by my noble friend Lord Forsyth in the debate referred to? He pointed out, as had the Arbuthnott commission, that the proposal would almost certainly have the effect of weakening the quality of the candidates of the minority parties. Surely the one thing that we really need is a system that produces the strongest possible candidates for the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of what our noble friend Lord Forsyth said in that debate. This measure is, of course, very disadvantageous to the minority parties and means that they have to find far more candidates than would otherwise be the case.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if it had really been the Government's purpose to spite the minority parties, they would never originally have set up the Welsh Assembly on a basis of proportional representation. If they were going to reform the system now with that purpose, surely they would get rid of proportional representation. That, clearly, is not their purpose.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, they are not actually proposing to do that but they are proposing to change the system that they themselves installed in 1998 and it is generally believed that that change will be to the disadvantage of the minority parties.
	This is a very important Bill for Wales and it is very important that we should get it right. My colleagues in the other place did not vote against Second Reading of the Bill and it is not our custom to do so here. Our wish as the Official Opposition is to see the performance of the National Assembly and its Government improved for the benefit of the people of Wales, and we shall therefore need to subject this Bill to careful and constructive scrutiny. It is a constitutional Bill and I am glad that the Government agree that it must be dealt with on the Floor of the House, as it was in the other place.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, before speaking on this subject I should like, from a Welsh angle, to pay my respects to Lord Ackner and his family. We heard today that he has, sadly, died. Many noble Lords will know that in the Aberfan inquiry he represented the community with great distinction. In fact, my uncle was the GP in Aberfan in the early 1960s but died before the tragedy. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that Lord Ackner adopted a daughter from a Welsh miner's family and had a great affinity with Wales. We are very thankful for his life.
	I should also like to thank the Minister, as a literary man, for quoting R S Thomas, who, although a native of Wales, did not speak the language. I should like to quote—as this defines where I am coming from in this debate—Winston Churchill's parliamentary tribute to Lloyd George in March 1945. Winston Churchill said that,
	"he was the greatest Welshman which that unconquerable race has produced since the age of the Tudors".
	Unconquerable—that is where I am coming from in this debate. Wales has not always had a fair deal from its neighbour. Indeed, that is defined in many aspects of our political attitude to this Bill.
	Welsh Liberal Democrats originally proposed a review of the existing 1998 Act, which set up the National Assembly. Indeed, it was part of the partnership agreement that we had with the Labour Party in the first Assembly government. The Richard commission was set up. I acknowledge the abilities of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the successful outcome of the Richard commission report. The important thing, certainly from our point of view, is that it was an all-party commission. Unlike Scotland, Wales did not have a constitutional convention where all parties came together and hammered out a template for the new Scottish Parliament. That, if you like, was our convention in Wales. The Richard commission said that the National Assembly was to become a parliament with full primary legislative powers and an 80-Member Assembly elected by the single transferable vote, resulting in more effective scrutiny of legislation and the separation of a Cabinet executive from the Assembly legislature. It must be added that that was aligned to a practical and realistic timetable.
	I regard the conclusions of the Richard commission proposals as entirely the correct procedure to give Wales effective power within the United Kingdom. The report maps out how Wales can achieve its rightful status within the UK. The response from the people of Wales would be far greater national self-confidence than they have at the moment—although I agree with the Minister that we have more self-confidence than we used to have before devolution—and the creation of a much more dynamic society in Wales.
	I want to acknowledge the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who has had an operation. I know he would have wished to speak in this debate. We wish him well and hope that he will be back for Committee stage.
	Frankly, the Government of Wales Bill does not measure up to the objectives I have just outlined, which were the conclusions of the Richard commission. There are no primary legislative powers granted directly and only some dim and distant possibility of that occurring if subjected to an extraordinary Westminster obstacle course involving the Secretary of State and Orders in Council. There is no doubt that power will still reside at Westminster. There will remain a 60-member assembly, so scrutiny will be inadequate. The single transferable vote system is rejected in favour of closed party lists for elections. I welcome proposals for the separation of the executive from the Assembly legislature, but even here it would place more power in the hands of the executive Ministers by taking it away from the Assembly itself.
	On Parts 1 and 2, clearly it was a mistake in the Government of Wales Act 1998 to incorporate executive and legislative functions into one corporate body, the National Assembly for Wales. We agree with the Bill in that there should be a clear separation between the Assembly Ministers, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Assembly itself. That also applies to staffing, with civil servants serving Ministers, and the Assembly having its own separate staff, although that has gone some way already.
	However, the Assembly is not able to engage directly in primary legislation, as we have heard, and, further, if the Assembly is to lose its executive functions, the balance of power will have moved decisively in favour of Ministers. That, combined with inadequate scrutiny powers for Assembly Members, alters the balance between the Assembly and government Ministers. Primary legislative powers for the Assembly would require an 80-Member Assembly and enable much more legislative scrutiny, as recommended by the Richard commission. Even with the Orders in Council process contained in the Bill, more scrutiny will be required.
	The overall conclusion must surely be that we all want an efficient Assembly government, called to account by an effective Assembly legislature, with the powers and resources to do the job properly. We believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not measure up to those worthy objectives. The advent of devolution for Wales and the creation of the National Assembly have assisted the democratic process and undoubtedly have improved accountability but, as we know, the Assembly possesses only secondary legislative powers.
	I have been a spokesman for Wales in the Commons and in the Lords for the entire period since Wales achieved its Assembly in 1999. Like many others, I am really dismayed that only six all-Wales Bills passed through Parliament between 1999 and 2005. That has been very disappointing for the Assembly, and demonstrates the legislative logjam at Westminster. I welcome aspects of the Bill that will provide more all-Wales Bills through the Order in Council process. In contrast with the Scottish Parliament, which, I think, passed 72 Bills during the same period since it was created—let us remember that we passed only six in Wales—we have a long way to go to achieve an effective legislature. The urgent needs of Wales will be alleviated by the Order in Council system in this Bill, but if we had primary legislative powers, the Assembly would be a far more effective and efficient legislature.
	The Bill proposes measures to further the legislative process, and enhanced legislative powers are to be given over a period. As I have mentioned, the vehicle to be employed is the Assembly's secondary legislative powers, but they will be subject to veto by the Government and both Houses of Parliament at Westminster in extreme circumstances where different political parties were resident in Cardiff and Westminster.
	Great emphasis has been placed on Orders in Council to make new provision or to amend, repeal or extend Acts of Parliament within the Assembly's current areas of jurisdiction. Although this would be a useful move forward, it would still be subject to the same caveats as secondary legislation, in that Orders in Council can be rejected at Westminster. One does not have to use much imagination to envisage the impact on public opinion in Wales of rejection of legislation by an unsympathetic Westminster government. I do not include the current Government in that scenario, but it could happen in different circumstances.
	Reference is made also to the Assembly being given, in the "long term", general powers to make primary legislation in those areas where functions have already been devolved. A referendum has been mentioned by both speakers so far. The reason for this appears to be that the Government think that there is no consensus on this in Wales at present, yet a number of opinion polls—not just one, as has been referred to—in Wales in the past 12 months unequivocally favour the granting of primary legislative powers to the National Assembly. The real reason for the rejection of the primary legislative proposals in the report of the Richard commission is clearly a result of differences of opinion on the issue among Welsh Labour MPs in Westminster.
	My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will later address the legal issues in the Bill. The electoral system, which has already received quite a bit of attention from speakers so far, is a controversial issue. The Richard commission was clear in proposing an STV system. This could work extremely well in Wales. It would be far more accountable to the electorate and be far more proportional than the system proposed in the Bill. It would provide choice and election by the majority of voters.
	The proposed combination of first-past-the-post and a closed regional list, even with different candidates in each category, would not offer the advantages of an STV system operating in existing constituencies, for example. As we have heard, the system proposed in the Bill has been severely criticised by the Electoral Commission. It certainly is not acceptable to us either. A vote on dual candidacies has taken place in the Assembly this afternoon. The result was 28 against and 28 for. We could perhaps see some graffiti there: "The status quo rules OK!" I have so often heard Ministers in this House say that they respect the views of the Assembly, so there are interesting issues there.
	My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will address the electoral system in his speech. There is no doubt that the Bill's proposals move matters forward, but are likely eventually to result in deadlock and dissent between the National Assembly and Westminster; ultimately, this could fan the flames of Welsh nationalism. There will never be a better time to reform the Assembly properly, replacing it with a parliament similar to the Scottish model. MPs should have shown more vision, realising that the granting of primary legislation to the Assembly does not undermine its role. I am sure that they could pursue worthy careers on UK affairs in the other place, without being undermined by giving the Assembly greater powers.
	There would have been a vibrant alternative in an Assembly with parliamentary powers. That would have provided a clear and strong Welsh voice with an effective Welsh parliament. More power would reside in Wales for the benefit of all our people. There should be no reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, unless and until primary legislative powers are vested in the Assembly. The post of Secretary of State must remain right through the establishment of primary powers, however they are eventually achieved. Indeed, noble Lords will know that we believe in a federal United Kingdom but, as we now know, this can only be achieved through a referendum to be held in the dim and distant future.
	The two issues of the block grant and the negotiations and reform of the Barnett formula make it imperative that the position of the Secretary of State for Wales continues through this process. A possible review of his position would be made only if these two later issues are resolved. One of the missing links in this Bill is a lack of proposals to reform the Barnett formula. It is strange that, in Clause 70, the Assembly is given powers to borrow, as well as grants. We obviously welcome that, because there are bound to be occasions in Wales when it is necessary to borrow money to keep things going.
	There is no doubt that Wales is short-changed by the present form of the Barnett formula. That needs sorting out. We have great needs. We have a demography with a great number of older people, many of whom are physically incapable from working long lives in heavy industry and agriculture. It is no wonder, for example, that the Assembly's health budget has a deficit of £71 million. The threat of NHS service cuts is there, while the demand for NHS services in Wales is huge. I hope that that does not happen.
	We conclude that the model of democratic governance proposed in this Bill is an unsustainable compromise. It may perpetuate the production of hybrid England and Wales Bills, if there is a logjam. There may be a modest increase in all-Wales Bills, via Orders in Council; we welcome that. But the reality would perhaps result in the Assembly being unable to produce clear, coherent legislation for Wales because it does not have the necessary powers. Although we supported it—because, with other parties, we want progress in Wales—we believe that the original Government of Wales Act 1998 was a compromise; we put down a lot of amendments to try to improve it in both Houses. These proposals incorporate yet another compromise, and time is not on our side.
	Wales deserves better; but we are not going to try to wreck the Bill. We will try to constructively amend it, to make it a better Bill that is fairer to the people of Wales.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, it is appropriate that I should open my remarks with an apology. I have been on leave of absence from this House for 19 years, discharging a public duty. I feel like Rip van Winkle, who went hunting in the woods, fell asleep and came back to his village many decades later to find that the whole world had changed. I am sure that, if there are matters with which I should be better acquainted and have not managed to keep up, the House will show me tolerance.
	The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, is of massive constitutional significance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill on behalf of his party, despite certain criticisms. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is not incandescently enthusiastic about the Bill, but I discerned from his remarks that there seems to be some movement in the Conservative Party's attitude to devolution. In any event, there is ample mitigation for the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He did a splendid job in the Welsh Office in inspiring and developing the delegation of functions for many years, and he did splendid work in relation to the Welsh language. I quote from the New Testament:
	"By their deeds shall ye know them".
	Indeed, his deeds have been noble and substantial in relation to Wales.
	In looking at the Bill in its generality, I invite the House to accept that the issue should be considered against the background of three realities. The first is the fact of Welsh nationhood. Wales is one of the oldest nations in Europe. John Milton described it as an "ancient nation" just over 350 years ago. I am sure that no Member of the House would gainsay or seek to challenge the fact of the nationhood of Wales.
	The second reality is that the Bill is in the main track of constitutional developments in the past 40 years. Constitutional developments in relation to Wales in the modern era are more or less confined to the past 40 years. Indeed, Wales did not exist as a constitutional entity before the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, thus placing Wales on the same basis as Scotland, which had enjoyed that status since 1885. There had been no status whatever for Wales before that time. It is true that in the 19th century a few Bills were passed on educational matters, licensing matters and so on, but there was nothing dealing with Wales as a constitutional entity. The Act of Union of 1536 states that,
	"the Dominion, Country and Principality of Wales justly and righteously is and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united and subject to the Imperial Crown of this realm".
	Tudor draftsmen did not allow any loopholes, as we can well appreciate. It took more than 400 years for that situation to change. Since 1964, there has been a steady process of devolution, brought about by the initiative of several Secretaries of State. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the assistance of the Minister of State, Lord Roberts of Conwy, to whom I have referred, and others. There was a steady process of devolution, which was validly and reasonably carried out. That, more than anything—more than all the arguments—made it possible for the establishment of the Assembly in 1998.
	The third reality is that the Bill is a tribute to the brilliance, statesmanship and imaginative creative powers of the Secretary of State for Wales and those who have served him. Detractors of the Bill will say that it is a fudge. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, says that it borders on dishonesty. Others say that it is a shabby compromise. Of course it is a compromise. Practically every political act is a compromise, because politics is the art of the possible. Nearly all legislation is a compromise. The only clear example to the contrary that I can think of is the delivery of the 10 Commandments from Moses on Mount Sinai; there was no compromise in that. Be that as it may, a compromise by itself is nothing wicked if it serves a proper and honourable purpose, as I believe that this Bill does.
	I consider Part 4 to be the heart, core and kernel of the Bill. It will be a massively significant leap forward for this House, if the Bill is passed, to create a constitutional edifice to which the Welsh people can have access—indeed, the key to that place will be offered to them—provided that certain conditions are fulfilled in the first instance. One of those, and perhaps the most important, is that the proposal should be supported in a referendum. I do not regard this as a weakness at all and I suspect that those who have attacked the idea of a referendum would be the very people who would attack a situation where no referendum was placed as a qualifying and precedent event.
	I have every confidence that in due course the Welsh people will support this leap forward by way of a referendum. However, on a personal note, having had the melancholy experience of leading the yes campaign in 1979, I think that one should be very wary of polls. There is a great saying, "Place not your trust in princes". I think that we could say, side by side with that, "Place not your trust in opinion polls". Six months before that referendum was held on 1 March 1979, the yes campaign was a few points ahead, but it descended rapidly to defeat from that point onwards. I doubt very much that the same would ever happen again. However, it is clear that the process that is set out in the Bill can take place only if there is a two-thirds majority in the Welsh Assembly, if this House and the House of Commons pass affirmative orders for a referendum and if that referendum itself is carried.
	I do not accept that there is anything fundamentally wrong or inconsistent with contemplating that the Welsh people should some day enjoy legislative powers in their Assembly. To say otherwise would be to believe that there should be a circle of steel, as it were, around the prospects of the Welsh people. Who would wish to place such a circle around any other nation? It would not be placed around the Scots. There are scores of sub-legislatures in the western world that enjoy such powers. It would be utterly wrong to consider that there is something so fundamentally strange and flawed in the character of the Welsh nation that it should, for all time, be denied this possibility.
	I hope, therefore, that those who contemplate attacking this procedure as a principle will reflect deeply on those considerations. Those who belong to progressive politics may well remind themselves of the words of Keir Hardie, who, a century or so ago, as a Welsh Member of Parliament—he was the Member for Merthyr Tydfil at the time—said, "I sometimes wonder what it is that makes men able to oppose home rule for the land of their birth".
	I pass quickly to Part 3, as I see that time has almost forestalled me. As far as I am concerned, Part 3 is not really an aim in itself; it is a transitory bridge that enables the whole question of Part 4 to be approached. I hope that not many years will be spent with Part 3. It is only a minor and, one might argue, somewhat minuscule development of the present system of subordinate legislation. The developments in that realm in the last decade or so make this a variant of that policy rather than a substantial extension. The scrutiny powers are all available. I have not had the experience of these matters over the past few years to be able to decide exactly how they should be manipulated, but the choice is wide and I have no doubt that there will be proper scrutiny, possibly by joint bodies of this House, the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly.
	No doubt some people will say that this should not develop on the fact of a referendum carried by a 6,500 majority only. I remind the House that the Great Reform Bill of 1832 was carried by a single vote, but nobody would wish to go back on that path.

Lord Richard: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, speaking after 19 years away, perhaps I should start by congratulating him on his quasi-maiden speech. It was fluent, as we all expected it to be, and I very much look forward to his participating perhaps more in the future.
	Having listened to the debate so far, I am reminded of my grandfather's funeral. He was a Welsh preacher in Carmarthenshire and, when he died, six preachers insisted on preaching—three in the chapel and three at the graveside. There was a certain amount of repetition in those six contributions. Although the motivation behind them was clearly good—it was to send my grandfather's soul up to his due reward—it was a cold day, it rained, as it often did in Carmarthenshire, and it was not the happiest ever of occasions.
	I start by declaring an interest—as has already been mentioned—as the chairman of the commission that looked to the powers of the National Assembly. At the same time as I declare an interest, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Rowlands is here. He was an extraordinarily valuable member of the commission, from whom we are to hear a little later tonight.
	When the Statement on the White Paper, the forerunner of this Bill, was made on 15 June last year, I gave it a qualified welcome. It seemed to me to recognise the important principle that the National Assembly needs greater legislative competence—to use a fairly neutral phrase—than it has at present. I am grateful that the Government have recognised this and have now provided proposals to put it into effect.
	The Bill's proposal to change the status of the Assembly from a single corporate body with its own legal personality to a structure that recognises the division of functions between the Assembly Government and the Assembly itself is very much in line with the suggestions in the commission's report, and I am sure that it is right. The present system is confusing and needs to be clarified. The Bill does so and sets a structure for the Assembly infinitely clearer than the one that exists at present.
	I likewise agree that Ministers in the Welsh Assembly should no longer sit automatically on the subject committees. This is an important point in the operation of the Assembly. It seems to me that the scrutiny function of the committees is considerably lessened if the Minister who is being scrutinised is a member of the committee itself. If he is, then the relationship becomes perhaps a little over-cosy. I did not detect that there was ever any great terror on the part of Ministers appearing in front of a committee of which they were a member. There is, of course, a strong case for allowing Ministers to appear before committees as and when this might be considered necessary.
	It is also sensible to clarify the number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers who can form the Assembly Government. If the number of Ministers is eight and the number of deputies is four, then it would follow that, when Ministers are withdrawn from the subject committees, manning the committees adequately will become a problem. That was one reason why we concluded in the commission that with the growth in the legislative capacity of the Assembly the present membership of 60 would not be sufficient. I regret that the Government have rejected that recommendation.
	The meat of the Bill is in Part 3 and Schedule 5, and the suggestions for enhancing the Assembly's legislative powers. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I do not take the view that this is just a minor step forward from the present position of the Assembly. Our proposals in the commission were for an interim stage between the present situation and the devolution of primary legislative powers, during which framework legislation would give the Assembly greater powers than it has at present. If that can be categorised as the starting point, the addition of the Government's proposal to legislate by Orders in Council is an interesting second-stage device, which will give the Assembly greater legislative competence without formally devolving primary legislative powers.
	I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, with very great interest. At the end of his speech, I was not sure whether he was in favour of greater legislative competence. He also attacked the Orders in Council procedure as if in some way or another it was hypocritical or not acceptable for the Government to use it. One of the things that I have learnt in 40 years in politics is the virtue of stealth. If the result of the operation of these powers is that greater legislative powers come down to the Assembly, whether they come stealthily or with banners flying and bands playing I mind not. The important thing is where the powers are, where they come from and to whom they go. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—although I understand the conservatism of his approach and his natural caution, which emerged very clearly in the speech that he made this evening—at the end of the day will come to the conclusion that the Assembly deserves the greater legislative powers that we in the commission—

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, let me make my position reasonably clear. I am in favour of greater legislative competence, but subject to a referendum.

Lord Richard: My Lords, of course I accept that there would have to be a referendum before primary legislative powers came down from Westminster to Cardiff; all of us accept that. The noble Lord is perhaps misapplying the situation if he attacks the Orders in Council procedure on the basis that it is a matter being dealt with by stealth.
	Much will depend on how the Orders in Council will work in practice. In a recent devolution policy paper produced by the Economic and Social Research Council, Alan Trench observed:
	"When and how exactly Orders in Council would be made is far from clear".
	I agree with that. He continued:
	"One suggestion is that they would be made as and when the Assembly seeks them. That would imply varying frequency, but with the possibility of much Parliamentary (and Assembly) time being spent on them".
	Another suggestion is that there would normally be only one Order in Council per year, the result of a bid by the Assembly in a bargaining process between Cardiff and Whitehall. I would be grateful for some indication from the Government of how they see this. The devil, or the virtue, is very much in the detail as far as this procedure is concerned. I heard my noble friend say that a letter had been placed in the Library. I am afraid that it was placed in the Library too late for me to look at it. If in fact it deals with the details, I can only say to my noble friend that I will read it with enormous interest and care.
	There is a considerable lack of clarity on the way in which this interim stage will be managed and effected. It is by no means clear how the Assembly would formulate its requests, or to what extent that would be purely a function of the Assembly Government, which presumably would negotiate with the Secretary of State on what they consider appropriate. That illustrates one of the dangers still inherent in the proposals; the scope that the Secretary of State would have to reject a request by the Assembly is as yet unspecified in detail. Parliamentary procedure in relation to Orders in Council is fluid, to say the least. It could well mean that the Secretary of State would take the view that it would not be appropriate for the Assembly to be given the powers that it is asking for, particularly if the political affiliations of Cardiff and Westminster were different.
	It is equally unclear what role the Westminster Parliament would play in considering requests from Cardiff. Scope for debate on Orders in Council is very limited; they are not capable of amendment. It is difficult to see at the moment how the formal Westminster legislative procedure would be adapted to meet the requirements of this new Order in Council suggestion. If reliance is to be placed on pre-legislative scrutiny, what would happen if there was disagreement at that stage of the process? I do not know; it may be in the letter that we have not yet seen.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly said that the reasons for the Secretary of State to reject an order are unclear. Does he think that it is appropriate that the court should decide in a judicial review whether the reasons that are given are reasonable or wholly unreasonable?

Lord Richard: My Lords, I suppose that it would be open to a court to take that view if the matter was to litigate in front of it. I sincerely hope that it would not be a matter for regular litigation. The process is essentially a political one, in which one hopes that the politics of the matter would prevail.
	I have two final points. The Orders in Council approach is a bit over-paternalistic. The Government are in effect saying to the Assembly, "Normally we can trust you to make reasonable requests, but there may be circumstances in which we in London know better than you in Cardiff and we think that you have overreached yourselves, in which case we will intervene to prevent it". Nor is it at all clear what the Orders in Council will contain if they are to add a "matter"—that is the phrase used—to Schedule 5. That schedule is in broad terms and I would be grateful to know whether the Government anticipate that the Orders in Council will be equally broad. It is envisaged that the powers transferred to Cardiff would include the right to amend existing primary legislation. That is Henry VIII writ large, because the right would be to amend not only existing legislation, but legislation that has not yet been passed.
	I do not have time to go through many of the issues in the Bill and compare them with my commission's report. I share very much the views quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that Wales is a separate nation; it is not a glorified county council in England. It deserves to be recognised as a separate nation and it deserves to be treated as a separate nation, and for that to happen it must eventually have legislative competence. I regard this Bill as a step in that direction and for that reason I support it. It is acceptable, but it is not permanent.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I start by saying what a pleasure it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, after his long absence from this House. He looked back a mere 19 years, but I look back more than 30 years to the time when, in Cardigan Mart on the borders of our respective constituencies, he and I on the last Monday of the election campaign used to address the farmers of Pembrokeshire and Cardigan. It seems a long time ago. It is nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, back here active after so long a gap.
	As there is a good deal in the Bill that I will be criticising, I shall start by identifying the one section that has my total support, which is Part 2, which affects the formal separation of the executive and legislative branches of the Welsh Assembly. There may be points of detail that need consideration, but the principle is clearly right. I shall have something to say about Part 1 later, but I now turn to Part 3. I listened with considerable interest to the not so stealthy criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, of that part of the Bill.
	It may not be immediately obvious to noble Lords who have not followed exchanges in another place exactly what would be the consequences if Parliament approves Part 3 of the Bill. I believe that the constitutional and practical impacts of the Bill, if passed, are so significant that every Member of this House should be made aware of them. If Clauses 92 to 101 were to be passed, primary legislation would cease to be the responsibility of Westminster or of the Welsh Assembly. The responsibility would be replaced by a system of government through Orders in Council.
	On 28 February, during the Third Reading debate in another place, the Minister, Nick Ainger, described the process and corrected some misunderstandings that had arisen in Committee. He said:
	"The Welsh Assembly will propose an Order in Council which will then be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, when it can be amended. After that, the Assembly will consider any changes and introduce a draft Order in Council. The draft order will then be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the normal affirmative procedures, both here and in the House of Lords, will apply".
	The next sentence of the Minister's remarks and the exchange that followed should be engraved in our minds during our later proceedings. He said:
	"It is not the measures that will come before Parliament in any form, but the policy statement justifying why the Order in Council is required. There will be a substantial amount of information attached to that, and it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny".
	My honourable friend Dominic Grieve commented that,
	"it sounds even worse than I originally thought. In Committee I understood that although the House would vote on the draft Order in Council, there would be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise the actual draft measure. The Minister shakes his head and says that that is not the case".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; cols.162-3.]
	What that means is that the actual measure that will go through the Assembly will not come before us, but the Orders in Council, which reference to Part 3 of the Select Committee on the Constitution report will show are very brief and uninformative, will be seen. It seems to me that this is a procedure that we will have to probe very closely in Committee. Indeed, the case for doing that was strongly reinforced by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
	There are other reasons for saying that the process is flawed. Clauses 92 to 101 make it glaringly apparent that the exercise of power supposedly to be transferred to the Assembly will remain entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Clause 94(7) allows the Secretary of State the right to refuse a draft order proposed by the Assembly. Ministers lay great emphasis on the effectiveness of pre-legislative scrutiny. But it is very hard to see how pre-legislative scrutiny can be effective in these circumstances. In any event, pre-legislative scrutiny should be an aid to consideration by both Houses and not a substitute for it.
	Furthermore, the devil is in the detail, and it is bizarre to imagine that the detail can be adequately dealt with by the arrangements that I have described. The hour-and-a-half debate under the affirmative resolution procedure on a brief order and a measure that will not come before the House, but which will be based just on a policy statement, is likely to be a curious and unproductive occasion. My right honourable friend John Gummer was surely right when he argued that legislative activity is at the heart of what Parliament does, and either the Assembly should do it or Parliament should. It would be unacceptable for no one to do it or for it to be done inadequately because of the strains that the Select Committee on the Constitution fears may be placed on the Assembly.
	I suggest that we should not be prepared to surrender the power to scrutinise and enact legislation to a system that very considerably increases the power of the executive. Part 3 of the Bill is not a modest measure. It is a measure aimed at conferring primary legislative competence on the Assembly on a piecemeal basis. As the right honourable Alan Williams, Labour Member and Father of the House of Commons, put it at Second Reading—and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy referred to this—
	"under the Bill as drafted, which provides for a succession of orders, the full legislative objective could be achieved without a referendum . . . a succession of orders could achieve that objective".
	He also drew attention to what he described as the Trojan Horse clause, because:
	"if just one non-controversial, innocuous order is passed, a policy area is opened. Once that happens, the Assembly is free to introduce new measures with different policy objectives, without having to go for a further order. It is a form of creeping devolution".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 53.]
	My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy has already quoted the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the Welsh Affairs Committee, so I do not need to do that again. But as he said, it is an interesting device and it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is absolutely right about that, but it would not be Westminster that controls the process so much as the Secretary of State, and that is where the real control would rest. It is going to be very difficult to sort out the fundamental flaws in Part 3 of the Bill.
	Part 4 of the Bill deals with the possibility that the Welsh Assembly will be given primary legislative powers if consent is obtained by means of a referendum. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that the Bill presents the opportunity to settle for a long time the constitutional status of Wales. It does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it places a huge question mark over the constitutional status of Wales. While pretending to offer primary powers subject to approval by means of a referendum, the offer of a referendum is rendered almost meaningless by conditions designed to ensure that it cannot take place until some distant time in the future when the Secretary of State and those who share his views can be absolutely certain of getting the result that they want. No referendum can be held until the Secretary of State himself decides that what he judges to be "adequate public consultation" has taken place. It has to be triggered, as we have heard, by a vote supported by two-thirds of all Assembly Members, and it has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by affirmative Motion. Mr Hain has made it very clear that he is determined not to have a referendum for fear that he might not get the result that he wants. That is not a democratic approach.
	I opposed the devolution scheme put to Parliament in the 1970s, and the people of Wales supported my position in a referendum by an overwhelming majority. Two decades later, I was equally opposed to the legislative scheme that set up the present Welsh Assembly, albeit by the narrowest of margins. But the Welsh people gave it their approval. From that moment on it has been my constant belief that the sensible way forward was to try to make devolution work effectively for the good of the people of Wales. That is not just my view; it is also the policy of the Conservative Party.
	Many would agree with Nick Bourne, the Conservative Leader of the Assembly, that the present situation is not sustainable in the long term. There are those who want to go forward. There are others who would like to scrap the whole scheme and abolish the Assembly. I do not share the latter point of view. Abolition would certainly not create a situation sustainable in the long term but would simply trigger a fresh campaign for a new Assembly and reopen old wounds. It would generate damaging tensions in Wales and create a situation that could be extremely difficult for a future Conservative government seeking to exercise their authority in Wales. That is an alarming prospect, but what is almost equally alarming is that, as a consequence of this Bill, we seem to be evolving a system in which the Government, by executive action, decide the way forward, rather than the Welsh people through their Assembly or the people of the United Kingdom through this Parliament. That is undemocratic. It is not what the people of Wales were told they were voting for when the previous referendum was held.
	There are valid reasons for Wales to follow the route taken in Scotland and to have primary legislative powers if that is what is desired. Equally, it can be argued that the alleged log-jam has been exaggerated—that emerged clearly in Committee in another place—and that therefore the Assembly should concentrate on making the present arrangements work. I would allow the Welsh people the choice. I trust the people. They should be asked whether they want to stick with what they have or whether we should go the whole way and go for primary legislative competence along the Scottish lines. I would amend Part 4 so that it could not simply be blocked by the Secretary of State. I would like it to be triggered by a majority of the Assembly if that is what they want. It is up to the people of Wales if they want to have fully fledged devolution to have it. I want to remove the blockages.
	As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking made clear when he introduced his Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill, and as many of us warned many years ago, that may have consequences in terms of fewer Members of Parliament or restrictions on their powers to decide on purely English legislation. One day the West Lothian question will have to receive an answer, and I look forward to what my noble friend has to say on the subject later.
	I return now to Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 7 seeks to prevent candidates standing in both constituency and regional elections. In another place a remark made by me in response to the government Statement repeated in this House on 15 June last year has been cited as evidence that I support what the Government propose. That is entirely my fault. Ignoring the wise words of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, who had done his homework, I commented on a topic about which I then knew absolutely nothing, and was beguiled by the superficially persuasive words of the Statement, which—unlike my noble friend—I had not had the opportunity to see or consider in advance.
	When I came to read the comments of those bodies well qualified to comment—the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society, the Richard commission, and particularly those of the commission appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, chaired by Sir John Arbuthnott—I found that I was completely wrong. The Arbuthnott commission, having looked closely at the Welsh arguments for Scotland,
	"firmly rejected limiting the opportunity of parties or individuals to stand in both constituencies and regions, as it appears to us that such a restriction would be undemocratic".
	The arguments that the Arbuthnott commission advanced were detailed and persuasive and we will return to them in Committee.
	The House was given an opportunity to debate the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on 3 March when he introduced a measure similar to the Welsh Secretary's bit of gerrymandering. His attempt was wisely rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, speaking on behalf of the Government. The Minister has today, as he had on that occasion, the unenviable job of seeking to condemn what is said to be a monstrously unfair practice in Wales while insisting that it is entirely sensible and defensible in Scotland, where the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—who made a challenge that was rejected earlier this afternoon—has shown that the circumstances are precisely similar. The conclusive argument is that changes in electoral arrangements should be introduced only on the basis of independent advice and a wide political consensus.
	Clause 29 is almost as bad, forcing the Assembly to have larger committees than it can sustain, with eight or 10 members, if it is to avoid the Labour Party having a dominance in those committees not justified by the total number of seats that it holds in the Assembly. In any event it is wrong that this Parliament, at the instigation of the current Labour Administration, should dictate such limitations. Like the Select Committee on the Constitution, I think that it is an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left to the Assembly to determine for itself.
	I conclude by emphasising that this is not a measure that should concern only Welsh Members of this House. As with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill we are dealing with issues of grave constitutional importance concerning the role of Parliament, the powers of the executive, the manner in which legislation is handled and the appropriate way of ensuring good government for all the different parts of what is still, and I trust will remain, a United Kingdom.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate on the future government of Wales. It is also a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I wish that I could welcome him in Welsh; I am not sure whether the House's procedure would permit that. I can say "croeso"—welcome, and a warm welcome at that. Taking part in the debate means that we are continuing the evolution of devolution: going forward step by step to what I hope will eventually be an effective and democratic government in Wales.
	There are many concerns in the Bill on which we will be touching in depth and possibly at great length in Committee and on Report. Today I want to mention two subjects of concern. First, the number of Members in the Assembly itself, which has already been mentioned. At the moment there are 60 Members, two of whom are officers of the Assembly: the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer; so two are out of the count in ordinary discussion. Then we have as many as 12 or even 14 Ministers who now with the new arrangement are not taking part in ordinary discussion. So we are left with just 45 or 46 Members of the Assembly who are able to take part in the legislative process and in scrutiny.
	As the Assembly's extended powers come into effect, I am sure that they will be far too few. Even on the Government side, if we take 12 people out of 28 or 29 one is left with very few to argue the Government's case on the Assembly Floor. I have been looking at the statistics in Wales. Of the 22 local authorities, only six have fewer than 46 members. They feel that they need more for adequate representation, legislative discussion and scrutiny. So I urge the Government—and I hope it will not be a difficult task—to take on board that to have an effective Assembly we need a larger membership.
	My second concern, as has been mentioned many times this evening, is the prohibition of candidates from being nominated for both regionalist and constituency seats. As we know, we have 40 constituencies, each with its own Assembly Member, and 20 regional Members. This is the attempt to have a top-up list—an additional member list—so that we have some sort of proportionality; otherwise we would not have a Conservative member of the Assembly at all. In order to achieve representation across the board we have to have some measure of proportionality.
	As the Richard commission suggested, I suggest that a single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies is the way forward; perhaps eventually we will arrive there. Now we have the additional member system. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not here. He said that in the ordinary Westminster parliamentary elections one could not stand for more than one constituency, but of course one can. There was one candidate who stood in Cardiff—she was the dream candidate. She stood in four constituencies—she received only one vote in Cardiff North, but she stood in more than one constituency. So on the parliamentary level there is nothing to restrict one from standing in more than one constituency.
	However, it is a new departure. As the Assembly itself is a new departure, so the method of election and the attempt at proportionality is also a new departure. There are 20 Assembly regional Members without direct ordinary constituency responsibilities. I would not say that they were footloose and fancy free, but at least they have a freedom to involve themselves in a different way. But the Bill does not tackle the role of the additional members in any way. It does not tell us whether that role is different from or similar to that of a constituency member. It is still ambiguous. They will not afford constituency campaigns, but they will represent a region.
	The Government's Bill suggests that they should not be allowed to be nominated for an ordinary constituency and for a region. What does that change achieve? It achieves nothing. The Government's argument is that the losers should not be elected. So the 40 victors in the constituency campaigns will not be faced in the Assembly by their unsuccessful opponents; but they will be faced in the Assembly by 20 people who did not risk a constituency campaign. Clwyd West is mentioned time and again, but it is the only example and we do not often legislate for only one example. They were on the regional list; that was the system; and that is what happened. Ivor Richard and his commission and the Arbuthnott commission in Scotland did not find any fault with these dual candidatures.
	On the Electoral Reform Society, the Electoral Commission and on party funding this week, I am told that the Government are listening very hard to what the Electoral Commission has to say. Surely, on this issue also they could listen to what the Electoral Commission has to say. The Government very often say "but the Assembly says". The noble Lord, Lord Evans, says "The Assembly says", and this is the Government's justification.
	This afternoon, as my noble friend Lord Livsey said, there was a debate and 15 votes in the Assembly in Cardiff. When they voted on dual candidatures, they had a dead heat—28 for and 28 against. Usually, if you are chairing a committee and you have a dead heat you go for the status quo. I am sure I am right on that. So I would suggest that the Government now cannot refer to the Assembly vote; they have no mandate for this change. We do not need this ban, and we cannot or should not support it. I mention again that you need a two-thirds majority of the Assembly to go to a referendum. Yet the Government are ready to accept a dead heat in the Assembly itself. Surely, that is totally undemocratic and should be refused by this House.
	Those who say there should be a ban say that those who are defeated as constituency candidates and left on the regional list will open offices. You are elected to serve constituents, so why will you not be allowed to open offices? Where will you open the offices? Well, within the region in which you have been elected. You cannot open them on Mars or in the Outer Hebrides if you are elected for north Wales on a regional list. So you open your office in north Wales and then they say, "Ah, but they might start campaigning". Surely, the Government are not going to say that we will restrict the campaigning rights of any one party in Wales: I certainly hope not.
	I was listening to the Chancellor give his Budget earlier today. He said on education that "What we want is the second opportunity". I suggest that on every level, and particularly on the socialist level, you afford the second opportunity. You are always ready to give a chance. That is another reason why we should vote when the time comes against this particular recommendation.
	I look forward to further stages of the Bill, and trust that Her Majesty's Government will listen and say, "Look this tinkering on the matter of dual candidatures is not worth the aggro that it will cause".

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like others who have already spoken, there is much in the Bill that I welcome, particularly the separation of executive and legislature as it brings the Assembly in line with traditional parliamentary structures, provides clarity of roles for the public and improves independence and accountability. I support the principle of giving the Assembly greater legislative competence, recognising the Assembly's development and contribution over the last seven years. Wales needs to have its request for legislation freed from the logjam that has existed. But, my concerns are in three key areas: the committee structures; the way the powers are to be enhanced; and the changes to the electoral system.
	First, I am concerned about the changes to the party balance in Assembly committees, as proposed in Clause 29. The Better Governance for Wales White Paper promised a more wide-ranging reform affording greater flexibility for the Assembly to decide the constitution of its committees, which would bring the Assembly committee provisions broadly in line with those set out in the Scotland Act 1988. However, contrary to the promise of applying the simple and straightforward approach taken in Scotland, Clause 29 is considerably more prescriptive and complex than both the 1998 Act and the White Paper, requiring the allocation of seats on committees to be calculated using the d'Hondt formula. The formula is used to calculate the allocation of regional list seats in Assembly elections, and in Northern Ireland and Scotland to allocate committee chairs. An attempt was made in 1999 in Scotland to apply d'Hondt principles to committee membership, but it was subsequently abandoned to allow single member parties a seat on committees.
	The Secretary of State for Wales has acknowledged that the d'Hondt formula becomes distorted when applied to smaller committees of six or fewer members. So, to apply the d'Hondt formula restricts the Assembly's flexibility to set up smaller committees when it needs to do the job that we will be asking it to do. If the Government insist on the d'Hondt formula, the call for more AMs becomes an imperative to ensure balance and allow minority representation on committees.
	Will the Minister explain why the case is so different for Wales from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and why Wales warrants the use of the d'Hondt formula for the membership of committees, rather than just for the election of chairs? When applied to the election of chairs it actually seems to make a lot of sense.
	My second set of concerns relate to the Assembly's legislative powers. The Better Governance for Wales White Paper clearly states that Her Majesty's Government's intention is to immediately, in drafting primary legislation relating to Wales, delegate to the Assembly maximum discretion in making its own provisions using its secondary legislative powers. Recently, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services gave us an insight into his own experience of framework powers in a debate and discussion on the NHS Redress Bill, saying that,
	"some of the signals that we are getting from Westminster were that . . . in making the case for framework legislation, there had to be some immediacy in the sense that we would be likely to use that framework legislation sometime within the next couple of years in order to have a strong intellectual case for it".
	From Dr Gibbons's statement, it appears that the Assembly must continue to make a case for framework powers, rather than, as was promised last June, a policy for new Bills to frame legislative discretion in devolved areas. Can the Minister clarify this apparent departure from the White Paper commitment and the possible internal inconsistency?
	I understand the Government's view is that they would not be able to make the case for full primary legislative powers for the Assembly to the Welsh electorate at this time. Powers previously delegated to the Assembly by Order in Council have been repeatedly criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House as giving powers to the Assembly which, in its view, would not be appropriate to be delegated, for England, to a Minister.
	Orders in Council, as far as I understand, would be unamendable. So Orders in Council appear a rather awkward halfway house in transferring legislative responsibility to the Assembly. Will the Minister explain why this approach is recommended and detail how it will work with the checks and balances that are required for a safe legislative process?
	Despite all this, the Bill seems to lack a very practical provision. There is no provisional duty to publish and maintain a register to track subordinate legislation by the Assembly. That is a mechanism that the Law Society in Wales has called for and is supported by the BMA in Wales.
	The Government have increasingly given clearer information—I am grateful—for the tracking of primary legislation as it affects Wales. I hope that the improved tables and Explanatory Notes will continue and will become routine practice in drafting all Explanatory Notes. We need to track all legislation, particularly as it increasingly diverges from regulation affecting England. Solicitors and other professionals in Wales, such as healthcare professionals, need to know all the details and to be able to access them rapidly—hence the call for a register.
	My third concern is the reform to the electoral system, with proposals to prevent dual candidacy. Far from being seen as a means of hedging your bets, dual candidacy is an express requirement when standing for election in some countries. We have two separate ballot papers in the Assembly elections: one first past the post and the other for the list. Success on one ballot paper is independent of failure on the other. Of course, as an AM can occupy only one seat, the first-past-the-post system took preference—but there were two ballot papers.
	In its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Government's own Electoral Commission cautioned against this change, which it perceived to be partisan and possibly adding to a prevailing distrust of politicians. It stated that the case for change had not been made. The Secretary of State discussed these remarks, saying that they were not the Electoral Commission's finest hour, but the Electoral Reform Society also vehemently opposes the proposals. It urges,
	"the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made".
	The recent Arbuthnott commission in Scotland, already referred to, considered dual candidacy. It concluded that its prevention would be "undemocratic" and agreed that it would place,
	"an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of potential candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election".
	Furthermore, I do not understand how banning dual candidacy would stop regional Assembly Members who have not secured a first-past-the-post seat then setting up offices as a representative in the constituency where they stood. Surely the roles of constituency and regional Members should be clearly set out in an Assembly-endorsed code of practice, with job descriptions for regional Members to focus their role on all-Wales concerns, which override constituency or even regional boundaries. There are issues such as north-south transport links, the environment and water, which are dramatically going to affect the future of Wales, particularly economically. We need AMs who take an all-Wales view. I would prefer that they had an all-Wales view, not even a sub-regional view.
	This proposed system of banning dual candidacy has been widely condemned as undemocratic and partisan, and risks reducing voter choice and the quality of campaigning, particularly for the smaller parties. Why is it being forced on Wales, without demonstrable need and without any real consultation?

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I do not feel that there is any major difficulty with the main thrust of the Bill. None the less, I feel more could be done in the Bill to reinforce the third sector in Wales and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.
	The third sector in Wales consists of a broad range of people, organisations and communities, who act independently of the state for the public benefit and not for private financial gain. This sector can tackle needs that are beyond the capabilities and resources of the public sector and which cannot be met on purely commercial terms. The sector includes voluntary organisations, community groups, volunteers, self-help groups, community co-operatives and enterprises and religious organisations. The sector is active every minute of every day in every community in Wales, making a significant contribution to every aspect of economic, cultural, social and environmental life.
	The Wales Council for Voluntary Action is the voice of the voluntary sector. It represents, supports and campaigns for voluntary organisations, volunteers and communities in Wales. The Wales Council for Voluntary Action, collaborating with partners, works to strengthen voluntary community action in civil society in Wales. This involves: supporting working relationships with government and public bodies; supporting and promoting the work of voluntary and community groups at national and local level; supporting and promoting volunteering and the interests of volunteers; promoting community cohesion and inclusion and building social capital; developing and supporting new initiatives; enhancing resources; and improving performance and effectiveness.
	There are approximately 30,000 voluntary and community organisations in Wales, of which over 25,000 are recorded on the all-Wales database maintained by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Over 23,000 are local groups, working at local authority level and even more locally than that. From a survey of voluntary organisations operating in Wales, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action estimates that the total income in 2001–02 was over £1 billion. Despite there being over 1.25 million unpaid volunteers, the voluntary sector in Wales employs at least 30,000 people—almost 2.5 per cent of the workforce in Wales. In 2002 the Wales Council for Voluntary Action survey showed that 13,000 were in the health- and social-care area, nearly 20 per cent of the social-care workforce.
	The WCVA has responsibility for facilitating the sector's involvement in the National Assembly for Wales Voluntary Sector Scheme. This includes facilitating the selection of the voluntary sector representatives on the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council, ensuring that as far as possible they reflect a cross-section of the voluntary sector interests and activities. The WCVA provides the secretariat for several sub-groups and working groups that have arisen from the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council, including the funding and compliance sub-committee.
	The WCVA also facilitates the biannual meetings between Assembly Government Ministers and representatives of the relevant networks of voluntary organisations. These meetings review how the Voluntary Sector Scheme is operating in Wales, anticipate forthcoming issues and consider resources. The WCVA convenes the planning meetings for the sector to prepare for the ministerial meetings.
	The WCVA's other support services include a help desk, funding advice, information sheets, comprehensive training programme, help with assessing European funding, regular magazine and information bulletins, and a range of grant schemes.
	When the Bill is in Committee I shall be tabling an amendment for the Government to consider including the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council and its composition in the Bill. In the mean time, I hope that I have demonstrated to your Lordships the justification for such an approach.
	I was encouraged today when I listened to the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he indicated that an office was going to be set up in the Treasury for the voluntary sector. That demonstrates to me that the value of the work conducted by volunteers and voluntary organisations is recognised. Wales is a nation and needs to have this identified in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree.

Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Richard for the report produced two years ago by his committee under his masterly chairmanship. The committee reviewed the working of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It is my belief that, without the commission's report, we would not today have before us a Bill to make provisions about the Government of Wales, if I may use the term in the Long Title. The commission offered a vision, a blueprint, for future development of the National Assembly for Wales.
	I very much welcome the Bill. Before moving on to draw attention to serious concerns about certain omissions from the Bill, I shall briefly offer a few comments on the important Part 3. Part 3 is intended to enhance the Assembly's law-making powers and, I believe, has the potential to offer a huge improvement on the present position.
	However, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, it is novel and complex and there are unanswered questions. Therefore, the question arises: will it work as well and effectively as is hoped? One can see that there may be testing challenges at two stages in the procedure. The Secretary of State retains control over the process. It can be triggered only with his consent. If there is an inter-Government disagreement on the merits of the Assembly's request for an Order in Council, there is no tailored procedure to resolve it. On what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said about judicial review, the judicial review process itself is complicated and can arise only where it has been shown that the Minister's decision has been irrational. Of course, judicial review is not the same as a right of appeal to an independent tribunal by reference to the potential merits or demerits of the proposal.
	Furthermore, there may be difficulties at another stage: the approval of the draft order by both Houses of Parliament. I very much hope that there will be a role for this House in the scrutiny of the proposal. In paragraph 3.9 of the White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, the Government said:
	"a more liberal approach should be reflected in Government and Parliamentary attitudes to making legislation at Westminster which affects the Assembly's areas of responsibility".
	That is the hope. How likely is that to come about?
	The Government have not claimed or pretended that the Order in Council procedure will achieve what it is designed to achieve. It may not. Paragraph 3.22 of the White Paper seems to imply that the Government recognise that possibility. The relevant sentence reads:
	"However, it may prove in the future that even these additional powers are still insufficient to address the Assembly's needs and the option of providing the Assembly with further enhanced law-making powers needs to be available".
	I believe that, in a few years' time or in a decade or so, conditions may be created in which a powerful case may have been built for giving the Assembly primary legislative powers over the devolved remits, provided that the case is supported by a majority of the people voting in a referendum on the question. I am pleased that, in Part 4, the Bill recognises that principle.
	I now want to voice legitimate concerns at two significant omissions from the Bill. I have informed Ministers in advance of the debate of my intention to pursue this matter. The issue underlying both concerns is ministerial responsibility for the Welsh language, the old language, Yr hen iaith, as was quoted by my noble friend Lord Evans from the Front Bench. I hope that the words of RS Thomas are appreciated and understood.
	The first concern is this: Section 47 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 imposes on the Assembly as a corporate body with executive and legislative functions a duty to give effect in the conduct of its business to the principle of equality of the English and Welsh languages—the principle enshrined in Section 5(2) of the Welsh Language Act 1993. Although the present law obviously separates the executive and legislative branches of the Assembly, the duty in Section 47 to treat the two languages on a basis of equality should, I submit, continue to apply in parallel to both the executive and legislative branches of the Assembly.
	However, Clause 35 imposes the duty only on the legislative branch. Nowhere in the Bill have I seen a duty on Ministers to give effect to the principle of the equality of the two languages. I am completely nonplussed by that omission. It is worrying. Is it an oversight on the part of the authors of the Bill?
	My second concern is that the Bill does not place a duty on the Executive to promote the Welsh language in the governance of Wales. Such a duty would be fully consistent with the duty imposed by the Bill on Ministers to promote or support local government and voluntary action—I accept that my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity requires that duty to be reinforced—the business sector, equality of opportunity and sustainable development. The duties in respect of those sectors are not expressed in identical terms, but a duty is clearly spelt out in some detail in Clauses 73 to 75, 77 and 78. In essence, they require Ministers to make, keep under review and publish a scheme in respect of each sector and publish periodic reports showing how the schemes have been implemented during the period under review.
	I do not quarrel with those clauses, but I wonder why a similar clause imposing a similar duty in relation to the Welsh language does not appear in the Bill. Yr hen iaith, the old language, is an essential element of the good governance of Wales and of no less importance than the other duties to which I referred. I therefore submit that the principles underlying Clauses 73 to 78 should be adapted to apply to the needs of the Welsh language.
	Of course, I accept that it will be for the Assembly Government to design policies to promote the language but the duty to promote and sustain Yr hen iaith should be entrenched in the statute book. It must be noted that there is a cloud on the horizon. The Assembly Government have announced that they intend to assume most of the functions of the statutory Welsh Language Board by April 2007. There is considerable—and, more importantly, growing—unease about that decision. Bereft of the protection of a vigorous, independent statutory watchdog and a statutory duty to promote and sustain the language, the existing statutory infrastructure that serves the needs of the Welsh language will have been damaged and considerably weakened. For all those reasons, I urge the Government to table appropriate amendments.
	Finally, I want to put on record that I am grateful to Ministers and to Mr Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, for having listened to these genuine concerns of a very elderly Member of your Lordships' House, who recalls going to City Hall in Cardiff 43 years ago to give evidence to the working party under the chairmanship of Sir David Hughes Parry. My concerns, which I have sought to convey to the House, are shared by the Welsh Language Board and a growing body of Welsh opinion.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I think it entirely reasonable and appropriate that someone like me, who has spent his life in politics representing English constituencies, should speak in this debate, because the measure before us has a considerable constitutional implication on the devolution settlement that is slowly emerging in our country.
	Perhaps the second reason for my speaking in this debate was touched on in the debate on my Bill, which would disqualify Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on English domestic issues, when the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, intervened to remind the House that I was born in Newport, which I was. He went on to say that I had managed to conceal this, but far from it. He should read my memoirs; he would find it an improving process. I was born in Newport, Monmouthshire, but everyone in this House will know that, in those days, Newport, Monmouthshire was sometimes in England and sometimes in Wales. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, then intervened and said that I was wrong: Monmouthshire was its own place, and that the United Kingdom consisted of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the county of Monmouth and the city of Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that I was born neither in Wales nor in England. I am therefore stateless—a position which my tax inspector has not yet recognised.
	It is an important debate because we are in a process of continuing devolution. As the Minister said in his opening speech, this is more devolution. It is a significant step, which I support, but I go further; I support entirely the proposals of the Richard commission. I thought it was a very wise and sensible commission and that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, set out the reason why a body such as the Welsh Assembly, which has some of the characteristics of a local authority body, should move to become a parliament. I am disappointed that the Government have not taken this opportunity to implement it in full, because one day Wales will have its own parliament and will have power over its legislation. Once you have given that to Scotland, it is irresistible for Wales. We do not have that, however. Instead, we have an extraordinary compromise, which has been described in this House tonight as a fudge and in another place as a mishmash and a dog's breakfast. There is a very elegant 18th century word which could be used to describe it. Salmagundi was a dish that was prepared from scraps of meat and fish, some old onions and eggs, and served up as an hors d'oeuvre. This is a salmagundi of a Bill, and the Minister should immediately announce a competition for that to be translated into Welsh, if it is not Welsh already.
	I support more devolution because it is the first step towards a separate parliament for Wales. The essential first step, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, was the separation of the executive and the legislative power. That is absolutely central, which at least the Government recognise. After that, however, the Government came up with this extraordinary fudge. In future, the Welsh Assembly will devise whatever it wants to do for all those devolved matters for which it has total responsibility and which cannot be challenged in the House of Commons, and it will advance proposals, as it has already done.
	A paper has been prepared showing all the Bills that have been passed since 2000 that would come under this proposal. They all deal with the domestic issues of Wales, such as local health boards, the Wales Centre for Health, the new health and social services inspections regime, and the Social Housing Ombudsman for Wales. I think that those matters should be dealt with entirely in Wales. They are the concern of Wales and of those elected representatives who have a responsibility for Welsh matters. Since 2000, these Bills have had to go through the processes of both Houses. In future, that will not happen. One of the reasons why the Government want that is that it will de-clutter the legislative framework in both Houses. They are so keen on this process because all the legislative detail of these measures will be examined in Cardiff. I am not against that—I believe that that is what should happen—but I do not see why the Welsh Assembly should then ask the Secretary of State for Wales for a tick to be allowed to do all this, and for it all to be done by Order in Council. Those of us who have been in politics for some time know perfectly well that the Order in Council is an extraordinary device. For a start, we do not vote on Orders in Council in this House, so this House, which has passed amendments and discussed all these Bills since 2000, will have no chance at all of voting on any of the detail of these proposals in the future.
	We learn that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. I am in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. I was a member of the Procedure Committee from 1975 to 1979 in the House of Commons, which recommended not only Select Committees but pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny, however, has not been a very satisfactory experiment. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will know that from his experience of the Ofcom Bill, which was given considerable pre-legislative scrutiny to improve it. The Government, however, simply dismissed all the Select Committee's proposals. I believe that they waded through them and did not accept a single one, so I hold no great belief that this means the great involvement of Westminster in examining the legislation. I do not think that that will happen, particularly when it can be done simply through a proposal rather than through detailed examination of the Bill.
	Would a Secretary of State for Wales ever decline a proposal from the Welsh Assembly on any of these matters, such as banning smoking in public places in Wales or providing a tourist accommodation registration system for Wales, if all the Assembly Members wanted it? It is inconceivable, particularly if the Secretary of State for Wales does not actually represent a Welsh seat. It would be a complete farce and a constitutional crisis, so I do not believe that that will actually happen. The Bill almost represents a parliament in another name. Those people who support the Bill have all been saying that this is the step that will take them where they want to go, but you do not need a referendum for where you want to go; this is something that has been devised by the Government. The Government have the power simply to say that the Assembly can move to being a parliament. I gather from all the opinion polls in Wales, although I am not closely in touch with them, that that move is rather popular. The Bill is an extraordinary constitutional compromise, and has within it considerable sources of friction.
	So far, the constitutional arrangements since 2000 have broadly worked well because the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff has the same complexion as the Government at Westminster; both are Labour. Scotland has a Labour Government and Edinburgh basically has a Labour-supporting coalition, but what would happen if there were different parties? Let us suppose that the Assembly in Cardiff had a Conservative majority one day. I see one or two Peers smiling at this concept and possibly even laughing at the idea and thinking it fanciful, but fanciful things can sometimes happen. If, a fortnight ago, anyone in this House had suggested that rich industrialists would lend £1 million or £2 million to the Labour Party in the expectation of a peerage, it would have been looked on as fanciful and absolutely impossible, so fanciful things can happen.
	But if that is too fanciful for Members, let us suppose that there is a Labour-controlled Assembly in Wales and a Conservative Secretary of State in Westminster. This is a relationship that has not yet been tested. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, touched on it. It would create a sense of tension in the arrangements that we are going to produce; it would not create a tension as regards Scotland, because Scotland has the right to legislate separately. If a Welsh Labour Assembly came forward with a proposal which a Conservative Secretary of State found totally objectionable, and he said "No", that would be a constitutional crisis. That would be quite rightly so, because I do not believe that he should have that power: the representatives in the Assembly should have the same powers as the representatives in the Scottish Parliament, which I hope will one day come about.
	So why have the Government done this? They have done it for the reason that I have already mentioned—to clear out the legislative logjam in both Houses—but also to give the Welsh almost a parliament, without the consequences of having a parliament. One consequence of having a parliament is that the Welsh representation in Westminster would be reduced from 40 seats to 32. I do not see that as a schedule to the Bill. But in all logical sequence, that is what should happen. I believe that this will create a parliament in all but name, which all supporters of the Bill have said today.
	There will be a mishmash. When these measures undergo any pre-legislative scrutiny or are even proposed for an Order in Council, I do not see why Members from England or Scotland should vote on them. I do not see why English and Scottish Members should vote on ombudsmen, health councils and local health boards in Wales, and the Children's Commissioner in Wales. It is the concern of the Welsh.
	The noble Lord, Lord Evans, ended with a poem from the very great RS Thomas in his early days, which was a diatribe against the English. When he was chairman of Faber and Faber, he published lots of English poets who wrote rather the other way. Noble Lords might remember Christopher Logue, who said:
	"If all else fails, try Wales".
	I hope that he will now distance himself from that poet's totally unacceptable comment. If I were living in the land of my forefathers, I would certainly support a parliament for Wales. It will come one day. The Government should have the courage to do it.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, given the time, I shall confine my observations to Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. First, it was a privilege and a pleasure to be a member of the Richard commission and to serve under my noble friend's chairmanship. At least he will have the satisfaction of knowing that, unlike many other commission reports, the dust has not gathered on his. Not only has it not gathered dust, it has been the prompter of change and has influenced government thinking. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, this Bill would not be before the House had it not been for the Richard commission report.
	The commission recommended that, ultimately, there should be the full transfer of primary powers to a Welsh Assembly. During its deliberations, particularly in chapter 13, it looked at other ways in which legislative competence could be bestowed on the Assembly within the existing arrangements of the 1988 settlement—the notion of framework legislation to which a number of Members have referred.
	Since I came to this House, I—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Baker—have watched pre-legislative scrutiny work very effectively in the Welsh context. We have had a kind of legislative trinity—Lords, Commons and Assembly—working together to produce good Bills. The latest Bill, the transport Bill, created a new precedent where the Assembly committee and the Welsh Select Committees in the other place worked together, jointly, and produced a very effective Bill, to which the Minister has listened and has amended accordingly as a result. The noble Lord's dismissal of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure is unfair in the Welsh context. The NHS Redress Bill and the framework clause of Clause 17 have now come before us, which the Constitution Committee on which I sit has now accepted as an essential part of extending legislative competence to the Welsh Assembly. Of course, we did not anticipate—it is not in the Richard commission report—the novel, interesting and innovative idea of the Orders in Council in Part 3.
	Members in this House have referred to debates in the other place already and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, produced the same line as was taken by the Conservative Front Bench in the Commons; namely, that this is a disguised, virtual transfer of primary law-making powers to such an extent that it is believed that there should be a referendum on Part 3. I would love to see the draft question that would be put to the Welsh people on the intricacies of Part 3, which would obviously grasp the imagination of the Welsh electorate. It is a ludicrous suggestion that Part 3 has to be put in the form of a referendum.
	The debate and discussion that took place as a result of that argument raises a fundamental issue, which was raised properly and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble friend Lord Richard: what will be the nature and content of the Orders in Council? Will we be presented with an Order in Council which is minimal in words, signifying a massive transfer of legislative competence over a wide area of policy? Indeed, if that were so, I would be a part of those people who would jib at the whole notion of doing so. We certainly will want to know what we are voting for. While I do not agree that there should be a draft measure, we have a right to expect clarification on the content, nature and scope of the Orders in Council.
	In that context, it is interesting and helpful that the Government did two kind of mock-up Orders in Council on Bills which have already passed; namely, the public ombudsman Bill—I do not know whether Members have seen it—and on what is now the Transport Act. Having read both of those mock-up Orders in Council, I found the first perfectly comprehensible. At least I would have understood what I was voting for and the sort of competence that we would give to the Assembly, and its measure.
	The mock-up order on the transport issue, I found opaque. Had I not known what was in the Transport Act, I do not think that I would have understood what was being proposed. Therefore, the content, scope and nature of the Orders in Council with which we will be presented is very important. If they are to be broad and clear as to what specific legislative competence has been sought by the Assembly in the subsequent measure, we would have every reason to object. The Government have suggested that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny and the Explanatory Notes will help in that process.
	As a member of the Constitution Committee, I should bring the attention of the House to the concerns that the committee has that this House could be marginalised in the process. We are not likely, or have not yet got a procedure, to be part of any pre-legislative scrutiny of the kind that will probably happen between the Assembly and the Commons on these draft Orders in Council. The committee rightly suggests—it is for the House to decide—in what structure, manner and way we will be able to deal with those issues and, as it were, participate and not be marginalised.
	Therefore, there is quite a serious point, which Members on all sides have raised, in relation to Orders in Council. We should expect any Orders in Council to flag up the key features of what will be an Assembly measure. We should not dwell on Assembly measures as such—that is not the kind of progress that this Bill anticipates in Part 3. The Orders in Council should flag up the key features of what an Assembly measure should be. Then we would know what we are expected to vote for and what kind of legislative competence we would therefore bestow, in a particular field or on a particular issue, on the Assembly.
	I turn briefly to Part 4. When we debated within the commission, I did not support the decision to transfer primary legislative powers. I understood, however, that if one did support that, the capacity of the Assembly would be inadequate. There would not be a kind of Back-Bench backbone sufficient to fully scrutinise the primary legislation to be transferred. I am therefore concerned that, in what is omitted from Part 4, the issue of the Assembly's capacity has not been addressed. I believe that the Assembly's capacity to handle Part 3 will be okay—partly because Westminster will be involved and Welsh Members in the other place will be sharing and taking part in the pre-legislative process. That will immensely help the subsequent development of Assembly measures. My noble friend and I immodestly suggest that everybody discussing the capacity issue should read Chapter 4 of the Richard commission report. Re-reading it, I was forcefully struck by what a thorough and detailed analysis we did on the Assembly's capacity—or, as the Secretary of State put it bluntly to the Constitution Committee, how the Assembly can work harder. There is considerable scope for the Assembly to work harder and therefore to accommodate the new legislative responsibilities that could be bestowed on it by Part 3. The Commission was unambiguous in its conclusion that if there was a transfer of full primary powers to an Assembly, an Assembly of 60 Members would be insufficient. There would not be a sufficient Back-Bench backbone to carry out that kind of scrutiny and investigation.
	I understand very well—because we are all critical realists—why the Secretary of State and the Government have shied away from including any such reference to it in Part 4. I hope that my noble friend would agree with me that the commission grappled with this issue hour upon hour. Once one decides to increase the membership, one opens up the issue of how to elect the extra 20 members. That is pretty fundamental and, understandably, extremely difficult. I am indicating at this stage that the issue will not go away. If a referendum is called, the Assembly's capacity to cope with these new powers would arise and the issue of how to elect the extra 20 Members will arise sooner or later; it will not go away.
	However, as we will see in the way Part 3 works out, we will have in the mean time knowledge and experience of the practice of what has happened to the Assembly and how well it has coped with and managed to carry the Assembly measures through. That invaluable experience will then inform the debate about the future size and capacity of an assembly if it were given full primary powers. My noble friend and I are at one on this issue: if you do transfer primary powers, you have to increase the Assembly from 60 to 80 Members. I support this Bill. I believe it carries the process of devolution further. It is incremental. I have always believed constitutional and institutional development should be allowed to mature, to grow and to take root. You should not keep on pulling up the seed that is growing. This Bill does not do that. It helps and carries the process of devolution further, and I support it.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I believe in subsidiarity—the principle that power and accountability should be as close as practicable to the people. Nye Bevan said that the purpose of power was to give it away. Of course, it is unusual that politicians choose to give away power, and it is greatly to the credit of this Government that they have adopted their policies of devolution. It was right, in 1997, that the Government offered the people of Wales the opportunity of devolution, and I am very glad that the people of Wales said yes. Since the passage of the Government of Wales Act and the establishment of the Assembly, the system has worked well, separatism has abated, Wales has prospered, and the democratic culture of Wales has thrived and matured. It is time now, however, to review that legislation.
	I believe we all agree that the Government are right to separate the executive from the legislature, and to address the problems that have emerged from the way in which we legislate at Westminster on matters devolved to Wales. Whereas primary legislative powers were afforded to Scotland, I believe it was right that they were not conferred upon Wales at that time. The mandate was too thin. Since then, we have encountered the problem of lack of time in the Westminster legislative programme for Welsh measures, and when there has been legislation, there has been insufficient scrutiny—in the House of Commons at any rate—in my experience. Varieties of useful, pre-legislative scrutiny have been developed, but few Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies have been appointed to standing committees on Bills that contain important clauses referring to Wales; and non-Welsh MPs have either been uninterested or have felt that they should not presume to intrude on issues that are devolved to Wales. We have had framework Bills—very possibly outflanking Parliament's original intention when devolution for Wales was established—but necessary to enable the Assembly to exercise the powers devolved to it.
	Critics of this Bill, who complain that it would diminish Parliament's powers of scrutiny, should take account of the failure of the House of Commons, all too often, to scrutinise the detail of legislation in relation to Wales in recent years, and the tolerance by Parliament of very large, permissive, legislative measures. The upshot is that policies agreed by the executives in Cardiff and Whitehall have been perfunctorily scrutinised before landing on the people of Wales. Some would say that the remedy for these difficulties is to move now to full primary legislative powers. I agree with the Government that it is unlikely that the people of Wales would vote for that transference now; and I also agree with the Government that the representatives of the people of Wales in the Assembly should determine the eventual timing of a referendum on this matter. In my judgment, the Assembly is not yet ready to assume full primary legislative powers. I speak with great respect, but I believe that the Assembly has further to go to gain the confidence and the affection of people in many parts of Wales. I also respectfully submit that it needs to re-orientate some of its focus and efforts and to develop some of its procedural methods. Surprisingly little time has been spent by the Assembly in the period of its existence on scrutiny, and on taking the advantage that it might have done of the enormous potential of its powers to enact secondary legislation. It is a small body, less than one-tenth of the size of the House of Commons. It sits for fewer weeks than either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and there is no second chamber in Cardiff to assist in scrutiny.
	The objective should be to move to devolution of full primary powers, and it is therefore sensible to take this opportunity to provide in legislation for a referendum to occur to enable primary powers to be transferred. It is also sensible, however, to proceed gradually as the Government wish to do. The interim arrangements—the procedures that are proposed in the Bill for Orders in Council leading to Assembly measures—are ingenious. There are problems of legislative time, of inadequate scrutiny, and of inadequate accountability. Part 3 addresses them. Critics of Part 3 need to offer their own constructive alternative. I do not think that the referendum being called for by the Conservative Party on the creation of the powers set out in Part 3 is any kind of constructive alternative. Views within the Conservative Party vary, but it is unclear whether the Conservatives hope that the referendum would be lost. They would be embarrassed about that because I do not think they have the political will to revoke devolution, and so we would be stuck with a system that does not work well either democratically or technically.
	Some issues arise from the scheme proposed by the Government. I fancy that the Assembly, rightly being ambitious, will make many bids for new legislative competencies, so much so that when the great day comes for a referendum in 2011 or whenever, what will be left to devolve? Can my noble friend tell us whether it is indeed the case that once legislative competence has been conferred in relation to a particular matter—or field, to use the jargon of the Bill—the Assembly will not need to come back for it to be renewed? The letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the shadow Secretary of State setting out illustrative examples seems to envisage that the Government would be transferring very broad powers, for example in the field of transport.
	If there are many such bids, the load on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee is going to be considerable. Have the Government considered whether the Welsh Grand Committee might have a useful part to play, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny? A committee consisting of every Welsh Member of Parliament, and which on the past pattern has not met very often, would seem to be available as a rather useful instrument for this work.
	How are the interests of England and the United Kingdom to be taken into account in pre-legislative scrutiny? In recent years we have seen that policies on one side of the border for the National Health Service or for student support, to take two examples, have important impacts on the other side. What, as other noble Lords have asked, is to be the role of the House of Lords? Are our procedures to be changed so that we vote on Orders in Council, or is our role simply to be advisory? What will be the processes for reconciliation if the two Houses of Parliament arrive at different views on a proposal for a new legislative competence in Wales?
	I am inclined to think that there will be too few Assembly Members to undertake the responsibility of scrutiny, even during this interim stage two period. My noble friend Lord Rowlands was optimistic on this point. He thought that on the whole they would handle it, particularly working in partnership with the two Houses of Parliament. But it would helpful if, when he comes to wind up, my noble friend would tell the House why the Government have chosen to reject the recommendations of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Richard, and on which my noble friend Lord Rowlands served, that the number of Assembly Members should be increased to 80, all of them to be elected through the single transferable vote? What is wrong, in the Government's view, with having more Assembly Members, having them all elected on the same basis, and therefore with equality of status? If we are to keep the additional member system, why do we not move to a national list, a move which would dispose of many of the difficulties about which the Government complain regarding the operation of the additional member system on regional lists?
	I am struck by the number of blocking powers provided for the Secretary of State in this legislation. He has the power to change the fields of legislative competence, to agree or disagree with an Assembly bid for a legislative competence order, to refuse to lay a draft order, to reject amendments that emerge from pre-legislative scrutiny, and even to prohibit the Clerk from submitting an Assembly measure to Her Majesty in Council. He has the power to disallow the referendum, and of course he has the power to determine the composition of committees in the Assembly. If the Government believe in devolution, they should act accordingly and trust the Assembly. Is it that the evolution of devolution will lead to the extinction of the role and office of the Secretary of State and that Whitehall is still too reluctant to face that? Am I right to discern some Treasury negativism in these blocking powers, and apprehension on the part of the Treasury that the Assembly will get a little uppity about public expenditure and the constraints of the Welsh Consolidated Fund which this Bill would create?
	It is said that this Bill will settle for a generation the constitutional status of Wales, but it contains nothing about tax varying powers. In due course the issue is bound to arise, and it would be a constitutional issue that would need to be dealt with in a constitutional Bill rather than in a finance Bill. It is bound to arise if only because at some point the people of Wales will insist on parity with the people of Scotland.
	No doubt these issues will be examined searchingly during the passage of the Bill through this House, but I believe that it imaginatively and constructively addresses real problems and needs, and I wish it a fair passage.

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I well remember the Second Reading eight years ago of the first Government of Wales Bill, when, in arguing strongly for the principle of devolution, I felt bereft of support on these Benches. But I have to say that today I am delighted at how my colleagues have come out to say that in principle they strongly support devolution, and a suggestion from my noble friend Lord Baker even for a parliament for Wales. The only thing they really object to is the process of stealth and deviousness.
	We would have to agree in this House that the National Assembly has been a success. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, in chairing his commission and producing his report, came to that conclusion two years ago. If anything, the evidence since then is even stronger. All parties and Members of the Welsh Assembly have made a commitment to see it succeed. It has been very innovative, with the Children's Commissioner, the Welsh baccalaureate and so forth. It has strengthened the sense of Welsh national identity, and I took very much to heart the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he said that the preservation of the language is central to the concept of Welsh devolution. It has not led to the break-up of the United Kingdom, as was predicted by some, and because of its obvious success it has gained support. I shall not go over the statistics, but one that has not been mentioned was in the ICM poll. When people were asked who should have the most influence over the way Wales is run, 60 per cent responded that it should be the National Assembly and 20 per cent the UK Government. Even though I strongly disagree with the political stance of certain policies taken by the Assembly Government, I am nevertheless equally convinced of the value of devolution. Indeed, it could be said that the Bill is necessary only because of the success of the Assembly. The fact is that a devolved government of Wales has established itself as a permanent feature of the UK constitution and all parties are committed to making it work.
	I recognise the fact that the main opposition party in the other place tabled at Second Reading a reasoned amendment, and at Third Reading voted against the Bill, and that Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament have asked for health to be returned to Westminster. I hope that this does not create a misunderstanding and give the impression that Members on these Benches are constantly dragging our feet. It is clear from reading the debates that, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy said earlier, the Leaders of the Conservative Party both in London and in Cardiff have come out strongly in favour of the principle of devolution. However, the devil lies in the detail, and that is the reason for the opposition which the Bill has met.
	I want to comment on a few aspects of the Bill, starting with the virtually unanimous agreement expressed in this debate on the need to separate the executive and the legislature. The original model for devolution was complex, confusing and contained structural defects. I well remember that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy pointed them out in the debate eight years ago. They were foreseen at the time. The idea of the Assembly being a corporate body that would facilitate inclusive and consensual decision-making was always a triumph of hope over reason and, frankly, flew in the face of our experience here in Westminster. It was because of that that in February 2002 the Assembly voted unanimously that it should effectively de facto be separated. The Richard commission supported that in its conclusion. That major defect in the Bill led in turn to other problems—the lack of time and resources to develop and scrutinise proposed legislation; the superficial nature of the subject committees; ineffective scrutiny of quangos; lack of consistency in how legislation for Wales was framed and so on. Therefore, I think we would all support—I strongly support it—the separation of the executive and the legislature, which will enhance democratic accountability in Wales.
	Secondly, one issue that has come out in this debate—I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not sure that I really understand it—is the details of Orders in Council and the process, which the Bill has, of strengthening and accelerating the legislative process. Here I disagree with some of my colleagues. I believe that the key to this issue is the recognition that devolution is a process and not an event. The Richard commission summed up the matter well when it said that,
	"the evidence demonstrates that there is now in place an evolving legislative relationship (between Wales and Westminster) based increasingly on the expectation that, in principle, the needs and wishes of the Assembly should be met".
	The Bill is developing the Orders in Council and the scrutiny process. It is an evolution. As somebody who is rather conservative, with a small c as well as a big c, I rather like that evolutionary process. It is building on the strength of success and it is not going for something radical. Frankly, I would be very nervous about a referendum at the moment. I wonder what kind of question you could ask which would excite and engage the people of Wales. What if, heaven forbid, it came out negative? That may be black and white and a clear result but it would throw the past 10 years into complete confusion. I therefore think that the time has to be right before we advance. I am not opposed to a referendum in principle but it seems to me that the present is not the right time.
	If the Bill were to propose granting tax-raising powers to the Assembly, an increase in the number of Members and a change in the electoral system to STV, those would be fundamental changes. If they were proposed, a referendum would be essential. But it seems to me that the Bill passed eight years ago contained the process of evolution that we are now seeing. My feeling is that if you buy a car, you need to put petrol in the tank to get it to move anywhere. This Bill is putting petrol in and accelerating the process of devolution, but I do not believe that it is changing it in any fundamental way.
	Thirdly, how robust is this Bill? The Secretary of State in the other place said that,
	"The Bill delivers a lasting settlement that will settle the constitutional argument in Wales for a generation or more".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 32.]
	I take a generation to be 20 years; I take a generation or more to be nearly 30 years. Immediately I read that sentence, I said to myself that I doubted whether anyone of Welsh stock could display such self-confidence.
	It seems to me that a lasting settlement has to be a robust settlement, not just for fair weather but for rougher storms. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, laid that out very clearly. Given what is happening nationally, and given what is happening in Wales, where next year you could easily have a coalition that has defeated the existing Labour Government, there could well be a different colour of party in London from that in Cardiff. Then the question arises: what would happen? How would the differences be resolved? It is not clear to me that, if there were a head-on clash between these views, we have a mechanism at present by which it could be resolved in a reasonable way.
	I am not in favour of a referendum regarding proposals to introduce the Order in Council but if there was one argument that would change my mind it would be the prospect of a head-on clash that then necessitated calling a referendum to resolve the issue, and the referendum debate becoming not simply devolution in Wales but the issue on which it had been called. That would muddy the waters, confuse the situation and again set back devolution.
	Fourthly, as has been mentioned, I have great reservations about the powers that the Secretary of State has carved out for himself—or, in future, maybe herself—in Clauses 94, 100, 149, and so on. I find it curious that on the one hand the proposal regarding Orders in Council assumes a professional, competent and responsible legislative body in Cardiff which is trusted and to which the Government are prepared to give more power, yet on the other hand, the powers the Secretary of State has in the Bill suggest that perhaps Wales cannot really be trusted with the power given to it. Either there is an inconsistency intrinsic in the Bill or else there is a lack of trust in Wales as if it is a teenage child growing up that still needs a great deal of parental control.
	I refer to dual candidacy. One has to have some sympathy with the voters of Clwyd West, who, out of five candidates, choose one only to find that three others show up in the Assembly. As has been said, the proposal in the Bill is to ban candidates from standing in both the constituency and the Assembly elections. The dissatisfaction with the system is based on two claims. The first is that the electorate vote not only for someone but against others. It is confusing, therefore, to see defeated candidates appear as successful Assembly Members. Secondly, the system has been open to systematic abuse as list Members have set up constituency offices and deal with constituency casework in competition with the local Member, possibly targeting vulnerable seats.
	I have yet to find any evidence to support the first claim. I have read everyone who has written on this subject but I have not yet come across any solid evidence regarding what voters have found insidious about the system. I can conjure reasons for what they might think but I have yet to find hard evidence. On the second claim, a ban on dual candidacy—as has already been said—will not prevent list Members setting up constituency offices. The simple fact is that AMS as a system is very different from first-past-the-post and is confusing for an electorate who are used only to first-past-the-post. A system that produces two classes of Members can be remedied only by changing the system. Meanwhile, a ban on dual candidacy—Members of the Labour Party associated with Wales must trust me on this—would certainly make it more difficult for minor parties to put first-class candidates into the Welsh Assembly.
	In conclusion, the Government are to be credited with introducing a Bill that strengthens and speeds up devolution but which avoids calling for an immediate referendum. The Bill, however, needs significant revision. The commitment of the Government to making devolution a multi-party issue based on a consensus in London will be judged on their flexibility in having the Bill amended.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, to follow my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, who has moved from splendid isolation on his Benches to a new consensus, to welcome back my noble friend Lord Rowlands after his operation and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, after his long period of hibernation.
	I speak as one who, during the 1970s, was a member of what was called the Gang of Six. In my judgment, circumstances were very different at that time. The experiment of devolution in a unitary system was wholly untried; there were clamant voices for separation, drawing on a somewhat 19th-century view of national independence. I believe that the concerns that I and some colleagues raised at the time were valid and that there were justified fears of a slippery slope to a form of separation. I also believe that the circumstances today are fundamentally different. The Assembly is now a fixed part of the political landscape in Wales. The separatist tide has ebbed and fears about the fragmentation of the United Kingdom have not been realised. On the country, it can plausibly be argued that the union has been strengthened by devolution.
	However, there are some legitimate concerns about the increasing numbers of England-only issues that will result from the process that is under way, a process that could thereby encourage English nationalism—hence the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking—with results that cannot be predicted. Also in the process is the likelihood that there will be a reduction in the number of Welsh seats at Westminster, which could reduce the possibility of a Labour Government. That will be welcome to certain Members like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but others may just be sleepwalking.
	Now that the Assembly has been established, it would be wholly wrong to suggest that its powers were fixed in stone in 1998. No political institution is static; all are dynamic in development. There have been creative but somewhat ad hoc attempts to remove the rough edges of the 1998 settlement. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Rowlands and other members of the commission for drawing attention to that. Those efforts include joint consideration of Bills, pre-legislative co-operation, such as with Clause 17 of the NHS Redress Bill, and various other informal means of breaking down the barrier between Members of the Assembly and Westminster. Such brave efforts, however, have their limits and a more radical approach is clearly appropriate.
	The Order in Council procedure under Part 3 is an ingenious way of proceeding. It overcomes the problem of finding slots in the Government's legislative programme, for which there is intense competition. Yet, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, the real test will come when different parties or different coalitions of parties are in control at Westminster and Cardiff. In such circumstances, can we rely on the traditional British pragmatism? A former Irish Prime Minister said of the British constitution:
	"It works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
	This may be an example of such working in practice, but we cannot be certain of the future.
	I am not sure that a satisfactory answer has been given to the Swansea West problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned. That is the problem—raised by my friend and former colleague the Father of the House of Commons—of the new political boundaries. The continuing incremental, step-by-step accretions of power could give the Assembly so much additional power as to make the promised referendum irrelevant. I accept, of course, that there could not be a proper referendum on the current proposals, but the question must be posed: where along the continuum from the current proposals to a position that would require a referendum would it be appropriate to have a referendum? Therefore, there is at least the scope for bypassing the proposal for a referendum. The Government appear to accept that the same destination as would require a referendum can be reached, albeit over a longer period. The choice, therefore, is a fast train or a slow train—no stop and no reverse.
	Of course, there is no easy answer. Where are the barriers or the stopping points on such a development? There are no constitutional barriers, as there would be in a federal system, with a written constitution and a supreme court to adjudicate. I see colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches nodding in agreement on this, which is their policy. I suppose that the only answer is political and lies in the good sense of Cardiff and Westminster. The question remains: can we rely on good sense alone? How firm are the safeguards in practice? It may not be difficult to obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly.
	I shall say only this on the public opinion polls: the noble Lord, Lord Elystan- Morgan, has already given his bitter experience of 1979—put not your trust in opinion polls. The public can be very fickle and one cannot negotiate with the public. It is clear that almost two-thirds of the Welsh electorate now appear to favour some form of devolution within the UK. It is sad that, according to the latest poll, the majority also believe that the Assembly has made no difference in education and in the economy; the plurality have a similar belief about health.
	Perhaps humility is needed in the light of the 1997 referendum result: 50 per cent voting, with 25 per cent for and 25 per cent against. That result was carried in the slipstream of a massive Labour victory, with all the major forces in Wales, with the exception of the Conservative Party, supporting the yes vote. So I favour the Order in Council procedure, but it is clear that there will need to be adequate scrutiny.
	I fully accept the points made by a number of noble Lords. A helpful model has been given to us, but much will depend on goodwill. It would be a rash Westminster government of whatever political complexion that capriciously withheld consent to a request from the Assembly for increased powers. That would be wholly counterproductive and would provoke a hostile reaction within Wales itself—a very unpragmatic and very un-British response.
	On the technical resources available to the Assembly, I understand that the Government assume that there will be roughly six Orders in Council per year. That requires additional technical drafting experience at the Assembly. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that position has been addressed.
	The most controversial part of the Bill is, of course, Part 1, which relates to the electoral system. The STV system, proposed by the Richard commission, has many advantages, although the Members of the Assembly would almost certainly thereby lose any constituency link. Some claim that the bar on standing both in the constituency and on the list is partisan, but that is not necessarily so. It depends on the outcome of the election. I genuinely do not have strong views on that. I accept the position mentioned by several Members that the Assembly could be deprived of scarce political talent if a candidate is shut out altogether when he or she loses in a constituency; 17 of the current 20 list members elected in 2003 were losers in constituency elections.
	Under the current system, voters cannot get rid of unpopular representatives when the parties put them high on the list. They will necessarily be elected. I can cite not only the Clwyd West example. I recall on election night looking at the result from Llanelli, where at one moment the very able candidate who had just lost appeared to be shedding copious tears; an hour or so later I saw the same candidate rejoicing in Carmarthen when the list result was declared. I felt in my bones that that was not really democratic. I confess that I do not know how this can be avoided, but losers will laser-beam particularly vulnerable constituencies within the region.
	Overall, I welcome the Bill and give it at least two cheers, but nagging questions remain about where the ultimate destination lies. Perhaps the only answer is political: the destination is as far off as the people of Wales want it to be. The Assembly has used its powers well, but it clearly still needs to convince the majority of people in Wales that it has made a real difference. As a matter of democratic principle, decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level. I hope that devolution means just that and not simply an accretion of power at Cardiff. A real effort should be made to devolve power from Cardiff wherever appropriate to make our local authorities as vibrant as possible in key areas.
	In short, the Bill is a pragmatic next step—yes, it is a consensus and, yes, it is somewhat confused—in giving more powers to the Assembly. This debate has shown the need for further debate and clarification. The settlement of 1997–98 has worked reasonably well, but it should now be modernised and brought up to date. This Bill, albeit not for a generation, will help to achieve just that.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I was involved for many years in developing the Labour Party's policy on devolution as general secretary of the Wales Labour Party. I worked with my noble friend Lord Jones in his then role as shadow Secretary of State for Wales. We spent many hours, months and years developing the policy. That is why I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate.
	This Bill is a further development in the devolution process. It updates, perhaps improves, the structure of devolution after seven years. It shows what has worked and what needs to be improved. During the seven years of devolution, some excellent Wales-only legislation has been enacted at Westminster at the request of the Welsh Assembly, such as the legislation that created the Children's Commissioner, the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. Today, there are Children's Commissioners in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There will soon be a Commissioner for Older People in Wales—the first such commissioner, it is believed, in the world.
	Free bus passes for everyone over 60 in Wales have provided new opportunities for older people to travel around the country. I was reading in the Western Mail this week that many older people from the valleys are taking day trips to Porthcawl—even in this weather—and bringing additional custom to the shops and restaurants. One pensioner takes a trip to mid-Wales every week, just for the pleasure of the ride. The free bus passes have changed the lives of many older people, who, instead of staying at home on their own, can once again enjoy the simple pleasures of a day at the seaside or in the country, or even a trip to Cardiff. Many additional benefits which were probably not anticipated when the free bus passes were first issued have accrued.
	I could give many other examples of how differently and successfully we are doing things in Wales because of devolution. One look at the elected Members in the Assembly shows how different things are. We have an Assembly of 60 Members, of whom 30 are women. It is the only legislature in the world to have 50 per cent of its membership made up of women. It is also the only legislature in the world in which the majority of Cabinet members are women. I feel the same sense of pride as I felt the first day that the Assembly sat in May 1999 after so many women had been elected. That showed the new, young, different face of the new Wales. The contrast between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly is for all to see. Many women politicians serve as role models to women in Wales. I felt that same sense of pride on 1 March, when I attended the opening of our wonderful new Assembly building. I know that other noble Lords who were there on that day felt the same.
	I feel proud also of my own party, which worked for so many years in the 1980s and 1990s to ensure that we had a good and workable policy on devolution. Without that commitment from the Labour Party, we would not have had devolution and we would not be debating today how we can improve the structures that are now in place.
	I agree with the ban on candidates standing in both the constituency section and the list. If a candidate is rejected by the constituency and can still be a Member of the Assembly, that brings about a certain amount of confusion among the electorate. In a democracy, the electoral system must be robust and it must reflect the wishes of the electorate.
	Much has been said about the list Members encroaching on the work of the constituency Members. Several noble Lords have said today that it seems that the Labour Party is opposed to list Members opening constituency offices. Of course, those Members need to open offices. As noble Lords have asked, how could the Labour Party be against elected Members, even list Members, having an office or running a campaign? The problem has arisen because many list Members have opened an office in a constituency which they hope to fight in the next round of elections. They have targeted a constituency and perhaps not worked as hard in the rest of the region. That is the problem; it is not that they open offices.
	In the run-up to the elections in 1999, no party spelt out the role of the list Member. It was new to us all. It was only when the election campaign started that I began to wonder what we would do with the list Members. I think that that was the first time many of us asked what a list Member would do. I know that, as far as the Labour Party and other parties were concerned, the list Members were the same as constituency Members, because there was no particular role for them. I know that the Bill does not address this matter. Perhaps all parties should think about it. Perhaps we should have thought about the exact role of the regional list Members in the past, but none of us did.
	Much has been said about not allowing candidates to stand both in a constituency and on the list. The approach that is being taken is not a precedent. The Electoral Administration Bill, which is in Committee in this House, will ban candidates from standing in more than one constituency. This will end the practice of independent candidates standing in more than one constituency, an example of which—the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned her—was the candidate who stood in the four Cardiff constituencies in the 2005 general election. Catherine Taylor-Dawson stood on the Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket. Her total vote in the four constituencies was 204. She received just one vote in Cardiff North. Another candidate, Rainbow George, stood in 13 constituencies in England. That is an abuse of democracy which will end with the passing of the Electoral Administration Bill. How are the proposals for Wales so different from those in the Electoral Administration Bill? The proposal to ban candidates standing in more than one seat in the same election is no different from the proposal in the Electoral Administration Bill.
	I spoke earlier of the innovative measures that the Welsh Assembly has introduced, such as for a Children's Commissioner and a Commissioner for Older People, as well the Assembly's 50 per cent female membership. There are other such innovations. The Welsh Assembly can be justly proud of being the first legislature in the United Kingdom, or in the world, to take innovative measures on specific matters which have proved to be so successful. Even if we are the first to rule that a candidate cannot stand in the constituency section and the list at the same time, our past record when we have been the first to do something suggests that this, too, will be a successful measure.
	The proposals to allow the Welsh Assembly to pass legislation on devolved matters through Orders in Council are to be welcomed. I am glad that my only concern has been mentioned by several noble Lords tonight, because they have far more parliamentary experience than I do; when I looked at it, I thought that perhaps my lack of parliamentary experience meant that I did not understand the process. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in his opening remarks the role of your Lordships' House in pre-legislative scrutiny; he said that it is for this House to consider how best to conduct it.
	However, at what stage will your Lordships' House decide on pre-legislative scrutiny? Will it be when the draft order arrives in Parliament? Who will make the decision on how to proceed? Will these matters be decided during consideration of the Bill—I do not think so—or will the decision be more informal? If we do not have clear guidance in advance, the opportunity for this House to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny could be denied to us, leaving the only opportunity for debate or discussion at the Order in Council stage. I understand that there will not be an opportunity for amendments; there will be an opportunity only to express views. I am not clear at all on this. I hope that the Minister can assure me on the points that I and many other noble Lords have made. My only concern is for your Lordships' House to have the opportunity to scrutinise, as I fully support the measure to allow the Assembly to legislate in the manner that it believes best for Wales.
	I am glad to see a provision for a referendum to be held if it is proposed that further legislative powers should be given to Wales. It makes sense to have that written into the Bill at this stage. When further devolution is needed must be a matter for the people of Wales to decide.
	There are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome. It will give the Welsh Assembly the confidence and ability to deliver the required legislation for the people of Wales without having to wait its turn in the parliamentary queue. I believe—and many have expressed this view tonight—that devolution is working for the people of Wales. As this new institution grows, it is now appropriate to allow it to develop further along the legislative path.

Lord Jones: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. It was my happy duty to work for devolved government for Wales alongside her for many years. I congratulate her upon her successful work.
	I followed closely the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I recommend most highly his marvellous memoir, Right from the Start. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I felt a twinge of regret that I worked so hard to prevent him being elected in his now famous by-election; he triumphed. He is here, I am glad to say, and made a splendid and genuine reference to the late Lord Ackner; he spoke for all of us.
	As a Wales Office Minister, I campaigned for a "Yes" vote in the 1 March 1979 referendum. On the eve of the poll, I had the privilege of opening a new primary school in Blaenau Ffestiniog. To my surprise, the dinner ladies of Maenofferen Primary School gave a united, vigorous thumbs-down to our historic constitutional offer to the Welsh people. Thereafter, the concept of a Wales assembly lay on the back-burner of Welsh governance for a whole generation, or thereabouts. The time was not ripe; the electors were not ready; we, the advocates of devolution, were unconvincing.
	As every month passes, surely my noble friend Lord Richard's commission proposals are shown to be shrewdly and cannily made. This Bill, as proposed by the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, will facilitate the noble Lord's commission's objectives: not if, but when—probably to target, which may be by 2011.
	The Wales Assembly is young. The recorded history of our country is well over 1,200 years. Yet, in a few short years, remarkable devolutionary strides have been made. The actual handover from Whitehall to Cardiff was well orchestrated—indeed, quite seamless—and a credit to our civil servants and Assembly Ministers. Constitutional history was made, and the Assembly continues to mature. Surely, then, it has earned the additional powers now offered by the Secretary of State for Wales in his Government of Wales Bill. I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: it has earned it.
	On 1 March, Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cornwall, opened the new Assembly building. This was not only a unique historic occasion, but surely a seal of approval—a coming of age of the concept of devolved government in Wales. It was a remarkable day, and all those present will have found it unforgettable. It was an impressive ceremony in a brilliantly successful and graceful building. I had the chance to offer my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside.
	None of us can foretell the future, but governments change, even when of the same colour. Should a government lack a majority, then considerable pressures develop. Some of us have been through decades like that. Governments lacking a majority may come under pressure, especially in de facto coalition situations. So we should watch this space, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, implied. It is a changing scene.
	Will this Bill enhance the governance of Wales? Surely it will. It will certainly boost the confidence of the Assembly as a provider. This legislation is surely a distinctive signpost towards primary legislation, and a measure acceded to by Westminster MPs led by a Secretary of State for Wales with a longstanding record of support for Welsh devolution. Surely the popular and successful First Minister of the Wales Assembly government will see this measure as an acceptable three-quarters of the devolutionary loaf.
	However, I offer some cautionary notes from, first, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of government, in 2004; secondly, Mr Peter Riddell, the sage—and tart commentator—of the Times in February this year; and, thirdly, the combative and consistent Mr Alan Williams MP in January 2006 in the Government of Wales Bill debate in another place. Professor Bogdanor said:
	"For devolution threatens one very fundamental principle which has lain at the basis of British social democratic politics from the time of the Attlee government. It is that the benefits which the individual derives from the state, and the burdens which the state imposes upon him"—
	or her—
	"should depend, not upon geography, but upon need".
	He went on to say:
	"It was for this reason that Aneurin Bevan"—
	who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport—
	"so strongly resisted the creation of separate Welsh and Scottish health services".
	That was what the professor of government said. Mr Riddell, in a recent issue of the Times, said:
	"For a start"—
	this is an article refuting in part what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said—
	"the over-representation of Welsh MPs relative to English ones should be ended. This happened last year in Scotland but Wales needs to lose a fifth of its current 40 MPs, especially after the devolution of greater powers in the Government of Wales Bill".
	That is his view, but it is cautionary, and part of the context in which we will consider the progress of this legislation. My former colleague in another place, Mr Alan Williams, who has a long record on this issue, said:
	"In the atmosphere that has been partially created by the act of devolution—making the Welsh more Welsh and the Scottish more Scottish—there is a seeping effect of making the English more English. I suspect that there is a limit of how long the English electorate will put up with the situation where Welsh and Scottish votes determine what they get, especially if there was a Government with an overall majority but only a minority of votes in England".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 55.]
	That point was made from the Opposition Benches.
	I bring those to your Lordships because we need to know the context of our debate. To summarise my argument, there are risks. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, implied, nationhood beckons. He may say that, but I judge that continuing accretions of powers are irresistible and inevitable. I think that the political conditions are favourable, and here is a Fabian solution. This measure is a launch pad towards primary powers. What the implications for the United Kingdom are, I do not know.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my near neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and I, suffered in 1979 from the belief in north Wales that we would be overrun by the Hwntws in the south and the belief in south Wales that they would be overcome by a monoglot of Welsh-speaking Gogs from the north. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is sorely missed tonight.
	I start by paying my tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Rowlands, for their immense contiribution through their reports to the devolution debate. Their analysis was wholly correct. Their solutions were practical and principled. The fact that they agreed with Liberal Democrat policy is perhaps coincidental. I also welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.
	I go back further than the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Anderson. Three young solicitors in 1962-63 used to travel around the Wrexham area addressing the Miners' Institute, and whoever would listen to us, on all sorts of issues, including devolution. The noble Lord was then in favour of independence. I was for a Welsh Parliament, and our third colleague, who later became the Member of Parliament for Meirionnydd, was at that time, as was the Labour Party, wholly opposed to our views. My two colleagues achieved election to the House of Commons very shortly afterwards where they were known as the two likely lads, and I spent many years in total political failure.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, refers to the Bill as being in the main track of constitutional development, and so it is. I congratulate the Labour Party on proceeding with devolution in the way that it has and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on her work on devolution over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, thought that we would swiftly get to Part 4, which he described as the heart and kernel of the Bill with primary legislative powers. He regarded Part 3 as a transitory bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, however, was less optimistic. I gathered from his speech that he thought that Part 3 would be here to stay, and that it was something of an opportunity missed.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, if I gave the impression that I expected Part 3 to take place in the blink of an eyelid, I entirely withdraw it. I was thinking in terms of years—a small number of years, rather than an eternity.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I think that I have indicated to your Lordships how many years we have been treading the same track. Perhaps Part 3 will not be too long. We both hope for that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to Part 3 as being over-paternalistic. They cannot let go. It is rather like a slab of toffee that is being pulled apart—you can see the strands on both sides remaining behind. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, it shows a lack of trust in the ability of Welsh people to rule themselves and to pass legislation. We can illustrate it through the minatory shadow of the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, by looking at his role.
	Under Part 3, the Orders in Council will extend legislative competence, but in a piecemeal way, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. How often will that be? How will that be initiated? These questions have arisen in debate. Will they last, and how will they be brought forward? According to the Bill, the Assembly Government will introduce a specific policy and we will get a policy document accompanied by the Orders in Council. The purpose of the orders will be to add a matter to the vires of the Assembly. What is a matter? Schedule 5 gives illustrations of a matter—Field 13.1, dealing with the Welsh Assembly, for example, creates a complaints machinery in the Assembly. That is a matter which is specifically given to the Assembly to legislate about. But once the matter is added it remains in perpetuity. It may be used to pass legislation that reverses the policy which initially was the reason for the order being made. It may repeal existing legislation passed by this Parliament. The noble Lord referred to Henry VIII. The powers that are given to amend existing legislation are greater in this Bill and under this machinery than we have come across before.
	Questions have been asked about pre-legislative scrutiny. The pre-legislative scrutiny envisaged in this Bill is for the initial policy when the order is made. On page 19 of the Guide to the Government of Wales Bill, quoting from the White Paper Better Governance for Wales, one reads:
	"The consideration (i.e., consideration by Parliamentary Committees or perhaps a joint Committee of both Houses) could be informed by understanding the use the Assembly might propose to make of these powers in the immediate future. However, as the power would be a general and continuing one for that particular policy area, this would serve only as an example of what could be done; the issue for the Committees and for each House would be the appropriateness in general of delegating legislative authority to the Assembly on the particular policy area specified in the draft Order in Council".
	So, when we talk about pre-legislative scrutiny, we are not dealing with a series of Assembly measures which are being put forward by the Welsh Assembly. What we are dealing with is just the initial policy paper upon which these powers are to be extended for the first time. The powers will continue—there will be no scrutiny of later policy matters.
	That is a considerable diminution in pre-legislative scrutiny by this Parliament. As a convinced devolutionist, I welcome that. The responsibility and the accountability for Assembly measures should rest with the Assembly. But this is the "proceeding by stealth" to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred, because piece by piece, as each order comes forward—we do not know how many there will be in any given period—the legislative competence of the Assembly will be extended and will remain there.
	The Secretary of State comes in again. He may refuse to lay before Parliament the Order in Council. He would be a rash Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested, but where there are conflicts between the Government in Cardiff and the Government here one could imagine that that might very easily happen. All he has to do is to give his reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned, I raised the matter of judicial review. The only way in which the Secretary of State's reasons could be challenged—and only on the basis that they were completely unacceptable—would be by way of going to the courts. I do not think that that is a suitable way of dealing with issues that would arise.
	I have already pointed out that no scrutiny is envisaged by Parliament of Assembly measures in themselves. Once the legislative competence has been given, Assembly measure after Assembly measure in that particular field can be brought forward. But then again, the Secretary of State may step in to block the Assembly's will be refusing to send the Assembly measure, once it has passed through the Assembly, for Royal Assent. On this occasion, all he has to do is to say he has reasonable grounds to believe it would have an adverse effect on any matter not specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5 and he gives his reasons for that. Again, presumably, that is challengeable only by judicial review, which is a highly unsatisfactory mechanism.
	I have dealt with the way in which the legislation is brought into being and how the Secretary of State can block it at various stages, but he also has some control over resources. The grants will still be by way of the Barnett formula. But if, for a temporary purpose and for a short-term deficit in the fund, the Assembly wishes to borrow some money, it can do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State and do so only for up to £500 million. This is a clumsy mechanism which is there simply to enable Parliament to hang on and to allow it to interfere at various stages. It is not a lasting settlement for a generation. Surely Part 3 and its mechanisms must be temporary. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, "Trust the Assembly", and that is the view that we take on these Benches.
	Finally, the Secretary of State may block any further evolution because a referendum cannot be held unless he has undertaken such consultation as he considers appropriate—and he has an entire discretion as to what he considers appropriate. Again, he may refuse to lay before Parliament an order for a referendum. The sensible thing to do is to make this stage as short as possible and always have in mind that we move to full primary powers as soon as we can.
	There has been much debate on electoral considerations and I do not propose to add to that tonight. I am sure that we will have a lot to do with it in Committee. The first past the post system of elections does have winners and losers. The person who has the highest votes and who gets past the winning post, even if it is only 35 per cent or 36 per cent, is the winner. When you are dealing with the proportional representation system, as the Arbuthnott commission pointed out, you are not talking about winners and losers. The aim is to have a balanced legislature. To say, "Four people lost in Clwyd—what on earth are they doing turning up in Cardiff?" is to misunderstand what proportional representation is all about. If you have STV, some people will get more votes than others, but you cannot think in terms of winners and losers. As I said, that is a topic that we shall no doubt discuss in Committee. Will the Minister confirm that the Committee stage will take place on the Floor of the House?
	The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that this was a pragmatic step forward. So it is, and I welcome it for that reason. But I think that it is an opportunity missed. It could have been more radical, it could have gone further, and the people of Wales should have been trusted with greater powers.

Lord Henley: My Lords, we are now coming to the end of a fairly long debate, but I take the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, back to his opening remarks. He remembered the introduction and Committee stage of the 1998 Bill Act, which was taken through this House by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn. I imagine—I cannot remember the precise number of days—that we spent quite a lot of time on the Committee stage of that Bill. I go back a bit further. When I first came into this House the original Scotland Bill and Wales Bill of the ill-fated Callaghan government were proceeding through this House. I seem to remember that we had something in the order of 11, 12, 13 or 14 days in Committee on both those Bills. It did not do much good in the end because, as noble Lords have reminded us, when the Wales Bill was put to a referendum it was defeated by something like four to one, despite the fact that a large number of parties were then in favour of devolution.
	I refer to the Committee stage of the 1998 Bill purely because, as the noble Lord will be aware—I understand that there is a Motion to this effect following Second Reading—we will have the Committee stage of this very important constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House. Although we have seen quite a large part of it before, and a lot of it to some extent replaces the 1998 Bill, there is a great deal to debate, and we want to be sure that enough time is provided by the Government to debate it at that stage. I gather that the first day has been agreed by the usual channels, and we shall come back to this after Easter on the first Wednesday back. I shall say a little more about the Committee stage at the end of my speech.
	Having made those introductory remarks, I shall restate the Conservative Party's position on this Bill and on devolution. Prior to Second Reading, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, made it clear that in our view devolution was here to stay and we would be a constructive Opposition offering constructive opposition to the Bill. He said that there should be a referendum to decide whether the Assembly gains more power and it should be a matter for the people of Wales to decide how much power they wanted. I will deal with that later. Further, the Leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Nick Bourne, also made it clear that he supported the position of the national party and said that there would be, as he put it, no turning back the clock on devolution.
	As my honourable friend Ms Cheryl Gillan, speaking at Second Reading, made clear, although there is much in the Bill that we do not like, we are certainly supportive of some of the new aspects of the Bill, particularly the point made by a number of noble Lords regarding the separation of the Assembly and the Executive. We will certainly support that, just as we will support further devolution, if that is what the people of Wales want.
	I would like to touch on a number of different aspects of the Bill that have been raised by a number of noble Lords. The first that I should like to mention concerns the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others, on the subject of the Welsh language. I am not competent to speak on that subject. I am not even competent to speak in Welsh, as I know the noble Lord is. I would like to remind him and the House of the remarks of Dr Johnson, I think, when he heard of the death of the last Old Norse speaker in the Western Isles, about how we are all impoverished by the death of any language. We on these Benches certainly take some pride, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy did, in the Welsh Language Act 1993, and we will certainly look very constructively at anything the noble Lord brings forward or anything that, as he suggested, the Government bring forward that might help to support the Welsh language. We accept his points.
	One other speaker from England, apart from myself, spoke in the debate. I refer to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. I think we need have no shame in being the only speakers from England in this debate. It is important to point out that there is a United Kingdom dimension in this aspect and it is not merely a matter for serried ranks of Welsh speakers and others to take part in this debate.
	As my noble friend made clear, the measures are a very significant step and have major consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom, which I will be touching on later. They have consequences for the number of Members of Parliament who will be representing Wales at Westminster. I just put it in passing that that might be one of the reasons why the Government wish to pursue—and I will get to this later when we get to Part 3—the measures by stealth, as I think both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, put it, because it rather blurs the moment at which one decides that there has been sufficient devolution to justify the reduction in the number of MPs.
	I turn now to Clause 7 and the question of dual candidacy. We on these Benches—and I expect it is true also of the other parties but the matter was raised by the Labour Party—have some suspicions. Why is it that the Labour Party in Wales wants this but the other parties—I am very pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that they voted on it this afternoon and the result was what might be described as a score draw, and therefore the status quo will continue to exist—would prefer to see the existing situation continue, although I appreciate that there are others such as the Liberal Democrats who would prefer to move on to STV, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, if there is a problem, what we want to hear from the Secretary of State, the Welsh Labour Party and others is the evidence of abuse? What is the mischief that they are particularly addressing? Why is it that the Secretary of State in particular will not deal with this question? Why will he not, for example, answer various letters that have been sent to him by Nick Bourne, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, the most recent of which was sent on 20 March, two days ago, though a number have been sent before, asking him to explain what is the mischief and the abuse he is dealing with. Answer, so far, we have heard none. I think for that reason that it is fair and right that we might remain suspicious of a measure that seems to have the support of the Electoral Commission, of the Arbuthnott commission in Scotland and certainly of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, when he was dealing with the Bill of his noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I am grateful that there was support for our position and the Liberal Democrat position from others in the House—I single out in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also raised Clause 29, which I was possibly not going to address this evening, thinking that it was much more of a Committee point, but when I first looked at it the word d'Hondt jumped up, as it were. I remembered the various speeches of my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish as he dealt with a fairly pernicious piece of government legislation, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which was eventually forced through only by use of the Parliament Act, but a Bill that in effect established the closed lists for those European parliamentary elections when we—and the late Lord Mackay in particular—were fighting for the open list. I certainly look forward as a little memorial to my noble friend to coming back to d'Hondt and those amendments. I assure the noble Lord that we will be examining that issue and tabling constructive amendments to Clause 29on the composition of committees. I warn the noble Lord of that at this stage.
	I move on to Part 3, the Order in Council procedure and the referendum procedures in Part 4. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, partly accepted that in that he said that it was a good thing that they were proceeding by stealth, but he accepted that the devil was in the detail; no doubt we will be exploring that in Committee. My understanding, which I find extraordinary, is that the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Hain, does not believe that he can win a referendum, despite the fact that all the evidence seems to be in favour of people having more power devolved to that Parliament.
	I suppose that it is not surprising for those who can remember the Bill of the Callaghan government and the closeness of the result in the 1999 or 1998 referendum—I forget the year. One should also remember—this is nothing to do with Wales—the Government's record on other referendums for assemblies: one thinks particularly of the referendum that they chose to have in the north-east; that was the only one in England that they thought they had a chance of winning, which they again managed to lose by that celebrated margin of four to one.
	As I understand it, the Secretary of State seems to be frightened of getting his referendum through to give greater powers to the Welsh Assembly and therefore wishes by the use of Part 3 by a process of salami slicing—as it was referred to by the right honourable Mr Alan Williams in another place—to reach full devolution without ever having to have the Bill put before the Welsh people. Having got to that final stage he will then be able to say to the Welsh people, having decided that everything is in favour of a referendum, "Right, now you've got it; you can now vote for it".
	I am not sure that that is satisfactory: we will want to spend considerable time on the issue in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell explained, we will want to look even more at the Order in Council procedure which, as he explained, is even worse than we originally thought. I look forward to that scrutiny. At this stage we await the Government's response, but I emphasise the importance of Committee stage to which we are looking forward in this House. This is a major constitutional Bill. As I understood it, the whole of Committee stage—admittedly on the Floor of the House—in another place took all of three days.
	The Bill is 165 clauses long. Can the noble Lord assure the House that I am right in saying that 133 of those 165 clauses were never discussed by another place—that is 133 out of 165—including the particularly complex and rather important financial provisions of Part 5? They were never discussed in another place. I remind the noble Lord of just how many days were spent in Committee on the previous Wales Bill back in 1978. I hope he will pass on to the Government Chief Whip that, when we come to negotiate on these matters, we will bear in mind how many days were spent on them and will want to make sure that we have enough time to ensure that this important constitutional Bill is discussed with sufficient vigour.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. Let me first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He will have recognised that 93 of the clauses were recycled from the 1998 Act, so it is not surprising that the other place did not think they ought to spend a huge amount of time discussing clauses which had been considered in previous legislation. Ample time was allowed for proper scrutiny, especially as the Bill follows the policies set out in the White Paper, which were thoroughly discussed and consulted upon. I am not suggesting that this Bill merits anything but the fullest possible discussion in this House. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we will be moving a Motion fairly shortly—I hope it will be shortly as it will be at the conclusion of my speech—to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, we will be discussing it in this Chamber; and so we should. This has been a fitting debate for a Bill that represents a historic step forward in the governance of Wales.
	The Bill will increase accountability by creating a clear separation between the executive and the legislature in Wales—a separation which I think has been supported on all sides of the House, and certainly by my noble friends. It will enable the Assembly—the legislature—to have the powers it needs to shape "made in Wales" legislation to meet Welsh priorities. It will improve the electoral system by ensuring that when voters reject a constituency candidate, they will not see that same candidate re-emerge as their regional member in the same election. These were all manifesto commitments made by the current Government at the general election, and we intend to see them through the House, subject of course to the necessary scrutiny of detail.
	So far as concerns the Conservative Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—and I first pay tribute to him for his outstanding work on the Welsh language when he was a Minister in the Welsh Office; we all applaud that—was a little unfair to the Government. He suggested that we were adopting a cautious position on referenda—that is from an administration who, in the 18 years they were in power, never thought that there was an issue to be put before the British people in terms of a referendum. So I do not think I will take a lecture from the noble Lord on the enthusiasm with which referenda should be undertaken.
	The Bill provides for the increase in powers judiciously arrived at through careful consideration under Orders in Council—a process which I freely admit the noble Lord emphasised particularly strongly, but he was followed by many Members in the House saying that they wanted to look closely and scrutinise the Orders in Council proposals and how they will work. We will have opportunities for that in Committee.
	Perhaps I may dispense with the suggestion that what is being accepted is some arbitrary system. Henry VIII powers have been mentioned. How can Henry VIII powers be applied unless Henry VIII was a democratic monarch living in Cardiff, subject to popular vote? Clearly, these are not Henry VIII powers; they are powers but they are powers vested in a legislative assembly.
	Of course we should expect a legislative assembly duly elected by the people of Wales to be able to initiate legislation for judicious consideration through the procedure for Orders in Council, bringing in both the other place and this House.
	It is for this House to make up its mind about how to scrutinise this legislation. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, first addressed this issue and said that she wanted some clarity. This was raised in other parts of the House as well. To clarify, the Constitution Committee has been helpful already. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, chairman of the committee, ensured that it addressed the issue. What did it say? It said that,
	"a clear demarcation of roles would be desirable to ensure effective scrutiny and avoid repetition of effort. It will be important for the committee involved to have sufficient expertise and experience of Welsh affairs. Thought will also need to be given as to how the work of this House, and its committees, can complement rather than merely duplicate the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the House of Commons".
	That is the Constitution Committee's proposal. It needs to be thought about more fully. I am quite sure that in the development of this House we will get a basis for proper scrutiny of what we recognise is an innovatory development of legislation, an advancement of devolution, to which we all subscribe—though at different levels of enthusiasm.
	I think the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said basically that, somewhat grudgingly, his party had adopted a new stance. Everything is new in the Conservative Party at the present time—the issue to test is whether anything will last. He certainly indicated that the party was adjusting its position on devolution, when it had blown pretty cold on the issue in the past.
	At the other extreme is the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who can scarcely hold his breath for the arrival of devolution for Wales, so that he can then establish English for the English against a background—

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the shape of things to come.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and I have seen his valiant attempts with his modest—I think he would recognise that at this stage—little Bill. Perhaps the Bill is not so modest, but its pathway is likely to be modest. He is at the other extreme. We cannot get devolution fast enough. I was delighted that it was their colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who then put this into some kind of perspective. He argued that there had always been sense in devolution; it had always been right that the Welsh people should develop some form of self-government, but what was necessary is that this process should be subject to proper scrutiny.
	This Bill is a gradual measure. How could the Conservative Party be against the evolution of gradualists, which this measure represents? I know that that can have a Fabian ring to it at the moderate end of the Labour Party, but I thought that the Conservative Party was not into revolution or dramatic public acts such as referendums. Those are un-English ways, they have sometimes suggested in the past, for going about things. I thought that they wanted the evolution of legislation to be a gradual process—exactly the concept behind this Bill.
	I heard the rather condemning concepts that this is all about salami tactics and so on. Not so—this is a gradual process subject to public will, initiated by a legislative assembly, which is created by democratic consent and subject to democratic checks and balances under the processes envisaged. We will have the chance in Committee to explore the issues in great detail. No one would expect me to provide in the limited time available an articulation in detail of all the issues raised tonight.
	I assure the House that we expect to have, and have in the Bill, a framework for the process that we will defend in Committee. Of course, we will listen to the arguments that are presented then—that is the whole point about Committee and subsequent stages of a Bill of this kind. I should be extraordinarily na-ve if I assumed that a Bill would pass through this House without the detailed scrutiny that it merits, and it will get it. We will have the chance to discuss in great detail the points raised this evening.
	I reassure the House that the Bill has not been created without very careful thought about the legislative and scrutiny process necessary for the development of the legislation. What the Bill does not do is incorporate the position adopted, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, but reflected by subsequent speakers, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. We do not incorporate in the Bill a concept of larger membership; of the single transferable vote; or of other dreams of the Liberal Democrat party about how the nation's legislature should be reconstructed on a different model, because we have a model that is tried and trusted. We recognise the enormous dangers that would be created—after what is, after all, only a limited time for the devolved Assembly—if we changed the electoral basis from that which has obtained in the past in the radical way suggested by Liberal Democrat spokespersons: that the numbers should be greatly increased and that the electoral system should be different.
	Of course, they will get their chance in Committee to argue that case; I have not the slightest doubt that they will do so. It is an absolute myth of parliamentary language to suggest that Committees deal only with detail; they often deal with formidable arguments of principle and I anticipate that happening about that issue. Let me just say that I hope that noble Lords recognise that principle will be met with principle, clearly identified in the Bill. We will seek to defend our concept.
	An element raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which chilled the marrow of my blood was that the d'Hondt principle would be subject to detailed scrutiny when it came to the question of the formula for committees. Whenever that phrase has emerged, it has been the subject of extensive challenge and scrutiny and we shall get that in this debate as well. The principle behind it is that there needs to be a formula that guarantees in relatively small Assemblies with relatively small committees that there is appropriate representation for minorities.

Lord Henley: My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that if you follow d'Hondt, on, say, a committee of seven, with the current composition of the Welsh Assembly, you would end up with the Labour Party having four out of the seven members of the committee? I do not think that that is appropriate representation for the minor parties.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, that would have to be examined against the background. The noble Lord will recognise that Select Committees in the other place were always faced with the problems of adequate representation. Part of the issue for the responsible Assembly is that if, on one committee, the rub of the green was against a particular party in an unfair way, the whole legislature, looking at the total picture, compensated elsewhere.
	The other place constructs its Select Committees according to such principles all the time. The d'Hondt principle can give us clear guidance on formulae, but to apply those formulae utterly arbitrarily could conceivably produce unfairness. We would expect a responsible assembly that was created on democratic lines and eager that its committees should be representative of itself to take the same approach to these issues. There is no way that small committees can solve this issue in any other way.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, what on earth are the Government doing trying to dictate this matter to the Assembly? Does the Minister not agree with the Constitution Committee that it is an inappropriate incursion into a matter that should be left to the Assembly to determine for itself? Surely this is yet another example of the centralist control so loved by this Government.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of all the Bills on which the Government should be attacked for having centralist control, I find it really rather odd that we should be attacked on this one—a Bill that gives additional powers of devolution that the Conservative Party in office never dreamed of, or if it did dream of them, totally rejected them.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the process of devolution is subject to veto by the Secretary of State in almost every part of the Bill, and even if the Welsh Assembly decides by a substantial majority that it is time to go to full legislative devolution, the Secretary of State will stop it unless he is absolutely certain that he will get the result he wants.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Secretary of State has powers with regard to the process of devolution, and so he should. No one is suggesting that the process of devolution should involve the main legislative power and the executive elected by that main legislative power casting a body adrift without any recognition at all of the relationship between the devolved Assembly and nation and the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be nonsense. Of course there are aspects which guarantee that the process of devolution is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which I have described, and to the powers of the Secretary of State.
	I see from the debate this evening that we shall have some fairly lively exchanges about the powers of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will guarantee that, and I shall not disappoint him. I want to emphasise this evening the extent to which the broad principles of devolution have been strongly advocated, of course by noble Lords on the government Benches. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Richard, aided by the support of others, which underpinned this fresh development. I should emphasise, however, that this support for devolution needs to be translated into a Bill that clearly advances the framework of devolution, consistent with democratic principles and subject to proper scrutiny by the Parliament that represents the whole of the nation and by the Secretary of State who has responsibility as executive member of that Parliament.
	I maintain that we have got the broad balance of the issues right in the framework of the Bill. I recognise the challenges that have been made this evening. I particularly recognise the challenge of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who identified what he thought was a weakness in the Bill—namely, that it had no clear commitment to the maintenance, support and extension of the Welsh language, nor to guaranteeing its equality with the English language in the future. I think that I am equipped with a proper response to that and will be able to assuage his fears. But I have limited time at my disposal today. He will forgive me if I do not go into great detail at this stage. I hope the whole House will forgive me that I am not able to match up to all the detailed arguments in a debate which has lasted nearly four hours.
	From the strength and clarity of the views put forward today, I am aware that we are due to have an extremely interesting and exciting Committee stage and subsequent stages. However, I would emphasise that the Government believe that they have placed before this House, subject to the work that has been done in the other place, a Bill which merits detailed scrutiny, but, nevertheless, represents an advance for the people of Wales and an extension of democracy. In those terms, it is a Bill which deserves the welcome that it has largely got from all quarters of this House today.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bus Industry

Lord Bradshaw: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to stimulate the bus industry outside London.
	My Lords, this debate will focus on bus services outside London. There are big differences between London and the rest of the country. Quite apart from the demographics, the level of car ownership, the cost of parking and the predominance of public transport, Transport for London has the advantages of being the highway authority for the strategic bus network. It has the advantage of the congestion charge, a very close link with the Metropolitan Police, camera enforcement on an extensive network of bus lanes, and control of traffic lights. All that is at very considerable cost, but has the Minister considered what it would cost to extend those sorts of measures to the English passenger transport executive areas?
	I suggest that, without tackling those other features, any talk of re-regulating bus services in the PTE areas would be pointless. If these features were tackled, I further suggest that it would be unnecessary to de-regulate bus services. That is because the real enemy of operating a punctual and reliable bus service is traffic congestion. The passenger transport executives are not highway authorities. Have the Government considered giving passenger transport executives powers as highway authorities along the major bus corridors in those areas?
	Outside the metropolitan areas, the shire counties, which procure those bus services not provided commercially, are highway authorities. In some places, particularly where the district authority is co-operative, progress is being made with bus priority schemes, park and ride, parking enforcement and realistic charging for off-street parking. In those places, bus patronage is generally growing and modern fleets are in evidence.
	In other areas, progress is disappointing. Some local authorities and retailers constantly underestimate the importance to their economies of bus travellers. District councils compete to offer the cheapest off-street parking. Is there any mechanism for challenging the way in which district councils run car parks? They are subsidised by local council tax payers, and pay no regard to the capital value of the expensive town centre sites in calculating the charges. Some district councils seem fixated with the notion that more cars equals more shoppers. A recent survey in Transport Times backs up previous surveys which show that retailers consistently overestimate the importance of the car, with the average retailer believing that 41 per cent of customers come by car, when only 22 per cent do so, and that, after walking, 40 per cent of retail spending comes from those who arrive by bus.
	Two questions follow for the Minister. First, should local authorities be obliged to have a parking policy and, if so, should this be subsidised by council tax payers? Secondly, how is parking provided at out-of-town centres? Is it rated, and do the stores pay rates on the car parks at out-of-town centres? The town centres of this country are under threat and, in our view, a well run bus service will contribute substantially to their prosperity.
	While on the subject of statistics, it is worth noting that regular bus users on retirement remain active bus users for much longer than those forced by age to give up the car and then for various reasons fail to adapt to bus use.
	There is a distinct fall in the number of 17 to 20 year-olds holding driving licences. In Transport Trends 2005, the number is down from 43 per cent to 26 per cent. There may be a number of reasons for this: cost of insurance, difficulty in passing the test, cost of lessons, or not being able to afford a car. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to accelerate this trend by extending half-fare, off-peak travel to those in full-time education—an opportunity that, I note, was missed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech in another place today. This group of users—young people in full-time education—has a particularly high propensity to travel and, as a result of the high revenue-generation factor, it would cost very little to implement a half-fare scheme for this group. Will the Minister undertake further, detailed research on this issue?
	My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will speak about bus service provision in rural areas and mention the absolute mess that has been made of introducing free travel for pensioners in England. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will speak of the much better scheme now operational in Wales, with its much lower administration costs and better benefits. He will also refer to some interesting developments in Wales in cheaper travel for young people. We hope that the Minister can promise to review the English scheme—which, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to today—and will certainly undertake to make better arrangements in the financial year 2007–08.
	When all is said and done, the most important qualities of a bus service are punctuality and reliability. Above all, that means tackling congestion. I give an example of Oxford, of whose county council I am a member. Two and a half years ago, it took a bus 70 minutes to traverse the city from the park-and-ride site on the east to the west and back again. In January this year, it took 105 minutes. That meant the cost of one extra bus, two extra drivers and no extra passengers. So the profitability of the bus service is in constant decline because of the congestion. To some extent, this is due to not having cameras to enforce the bus lane priorities, about which I have frequently questioned the Minister—until he is probably rather sick of it. Although the scheme is now agreed, I understand that there is a problem with type approval on the cameras, about which I hope he can enlighten us. The rest of the delay is due to insufficient bus priority, lax parking enforcement and lack of interest by the present county council administration and the officers.
	For two years the Bus Partnership Forum has been promoting punctuality improvement partnerships. Progress has been very disappointing. Will the Government closely examine local transport plans, which are about to be submitted, to find out whether there are real plans by the counties and districts involved to put some real action together? So far, input into these partnerships by local authorities has also been disappointing. I should like to see the authorities that put forward real proposals to tackle traffic congestion being rewarded, particularly if they propose schemes to create bus priorities at pinch points, enforce strict parking controls and set up park-and-ride schemes and congestion charges.
	Guidance is about to be published following a meeting of the Bus Partnership Forum on how to put together quality partnership agreements. When is the guidance going to be published? It is really essential and of course it should embrace what is to be done by the bus companies and, more importantly, by local authorities. We hope that any scheme will be measured not on the number of vehicles passing along the road, but on the number of people using that corridor. What we are about is moving people, not cars and other vehicles.
	Finally, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made in the talks, which I believe have been going on, between the Department for Transport and the Office of Fair Trading to allow measures that benefit passengers to be exempted from the controls of competition law? I am particularly concerned about through tickets, joint tickets and joint timetables, which have clear benefits for the user and are essential to a truly integrated transport system. Many of these questions must be cleared up before smart cards are introduced. Perhaps the Minister will share with the House the Government's latest thinking on this issue.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bradshaw in speaking about bus services outside London, especially as he mentioned the announcement made during the past few days about the scheme in Wales that will allow young people to pay half fares or even less; we will see how the Assembly proceeds with that. Young people often find the cost of travel prohibitive. As the amendments wend their way through, we shall see what kind of scheme eventually emerges.
	I also congratulate the Welsh Assembly on possibly the most consumer-friendly act of its whole existence: the provision in 2002 of free travel for pensioners and people with disabilities. That has injected new life into the bus services of Wales. Each of the 22 unitary authorities is responsible for its own scheme. Each authority reports the actual audited expenditure that it incurs in issuing passes to those eligible, and the Assembly finances the scheme. There is one scheme of reimbursement to bus operators throughout Wales. The schemes in England, of which there are many, are not comparable in terms of their efficiency with that in Wales. Each English scheme for reimbursement is negotiated locally with individual operators. That creates substantial administrative costs and there are many disputes and uncertainties. Of course, all these local costs are met by local council tax payers. In addition, the main costs are met by central government.
	In Wales, while each authority is responsible for the scheme in its own area, there is an agreement that passes issued by one authority will be valid throughout the Principality. Some people travel from Holyhead to Cardiff and so can have a wonderful couple of days out. They can do that totally free of charge. As long as the journey starts in Wales, people can even cross the border. Some venture to places such as Chester, travelling from Flint. It is a great scheme.
	In my own area, the Conwy County Borough Council made a charge of £7 for a pass entitling a passenger to travel at half fare. But then 2002 came, and this new scheme was initiated by the Lib-Labour partnership government in Cardiff. In 2002, before the scheme, 9,000 passes were issued by the Conwy County Borough Council. Within three years, that figure has grown to 25,000. It is a boon for older people. Provision is also made for disabled people and for those who need to accompany disabled people on their bus journeys.
	A massive benefit has been the safeguarding, because of increased passenger numbers, of many routes that would have ceased to be—they would have been axed. This has been a tremendous help to local communities, especially in the more rural areas. It is not only older people or the disabled who have benefited, but the whole community.
	Because of increased passenger numbers, more frequent buses are needed. Where I live in Llandudno, there are 50 per cent more buses on the Llandudno to Rhyl route—route 12. Now there is a bus every 10 minutes, which is better than on some London routes. We are told that route 12 is the most professional of all Arriva operations in the United Kingdom. In December 2003, when the scheme was just coming in, 54,000 people travelled that route every month. By 2005, that figure had leapt to 151,000 passengers; three times as many people are using that route.
	I hope that, very shortly, free passes might be able to be used on certain railway services. In mid-Wales, trains are more frequent than buses, but that does not mean that they are very frequent. I hope that the free passes will be able to be used on trains where that is advantageous to the passenger.
	From the point of view of the environment, the Welsh scheme has resulted in fewer cars on the roads. The scheme has many environmental benefits, but the biggest benefit is that the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people has improved dramatically.
	I conclude my short speech by saying that it is time that the English scheme was looked at again. I hope that this time England will learn a lesson from Wales.

Lord Snape: My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to the National Express Group of companies and as a former director and chairman of its main bus subsidiary, Travel West Midlands, which is based in Birmingham.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I hope that I do not prejudice his career in his own party by saying that I agreed with virtually every word of what he had to say. I must confess that I was rather expecting to hear a plea on behalf of the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which continually bangs a one-note drum demanding the re-regulation of bus services. The noble Lord correctly said that PTEG has a proper role to play, as do local authorities nationwide outside passenger transport executive areas. The problem is convincing it what its proper role is.
	I have attended my party's national conferences for more years than I care to recollect. For the past four years, the Passenger Transport Executive Group has organised a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference—I understand that it does that also at other political parties' national conferences—at which its only apparent demand is the re-regulation of buses. Yet in the West Midlands—the area that I know best—getting any sort of co-operation from the passenger transport executive on the matters that it should be concerned with is extremely difficult. I know that it did not like the 1985 Act that deregulated the buses, but that happened more than 20 years ago. To fight what in my view is a nonsensical battle for re-regulation, and one that in my view it cannot possibly win, whilst ignoring the real role that it can play, as well as the hand of friendship that many private operators have proffered to it over the years, is not leading to a better deal for the person whom we should be concerned about—the bus passenger.
	It is no coincidence that in those towns where bus travel has increased in recent years—all of them outside passenger transport executive areas, despite the millions of pounds of public money that have been poured into supporting bus services in PTE areas—all the local authorities, regardless of political control, happen to be the highway authorities for the areas in which the private sector bus services operate. Because they are the highway authorities, they can, at first hand, create bus priority measures.
	Let us face the fact that the only way to convince people to leave their cars and get on a bus is to ensure that buses are at least as quick, if not quicker, than travelling by car. Noble Lords will need no reminding that the great problem for buses is traffic congestion. Buses cannot use rat-runs; they cannot nip off their normal route—at least properly run bus services cannot do that. Unless we grasp the nettle of car restraint and unless local authorities, as highway authorities, do more about restraining motor vehicles and installing more bus priority measures, there will be a decline in bus service usage. That decline in usage did not start with the passage of the 1985 Act, but goes back to the 1950s, although the supporters of re-regulation never apparently wish to talk about anything that took place prior to 1985.
	Of course, it is no secret that that decline is predominantly due to the spread of the private car. I do not complain about that. Like most of your Lordships, I own a motor car. When I was in the other place, people used to write to Members of the House complaining that the socially disadvantaged had no way of getting to some of the out-of-town shopping centres that local authorities, particularly those controlled by my own party, had given permission for in the first place. I was quite often tempted to write to the local authorities, saying, "If you give planning permission without worrying about public transport services, you cannot expect people who live in socially deprived areas to get to those facilities that you have provided". Convincing local authorities that there is a social impact to their transport policies is something that neither House and no political party apparently is very good at doing. There have been some successes in relation to passenger increases, but none of them is within the PTE areas, despite, as I have already indicated, the amount of money poured into support services in those areas.
	Returning to my experiences at fringe meetings at party conferences, I should say that occasionally they allow the opposing point of view to be put forward, but not very often. Two years ago, the PTEs invited Philip White, the chief executive of the company that I work for, on to the platform and he told them some home truths about the failure of co-operation by the passenger transport executives with the privately owned companies and their failure to campaign for what should be their objective: to be highway authorities so that they can get things done much quicker than they can at present. For his pains, he did not receive much of a round of applause. As I told him afterwards, he would not be invited back in subsequent years.
	Last year, I went to a similar meeting and heard similar arguments. The speaker who put the opposing point of view was Mr Peter Hendy, the transport supremo in this city. He said nothing about ownership or regulation but he spoke of the fact that lots of money has been poured into London buses and lots of priority measures have been put in place in this city—not a message that the meeting wanted to hear. I suspect that those measures make me and other noble Lords much greater users of London buses than ever we were in the past. For his pains, he did not receive much applause either. I have no doubt that he will not be invited on to the platform at the Labour Party conference in Manchester later this year. However, what he said was perfectly true, as was what his predecessor, Philip White, said. It was the same message as the previous year. So PTEG should really get away from the nonsense that the whole decline in bus usage is a result of the consequences of deregulation under the 1985 Act.
	I diverge for a moment from praising the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to tell him that the highway authority in Birmingham, the city where I chaired the bus company, is at present removing bus lanes, despite an agreement with the company, made during the time of my chairmanship, that the company would provide brand-new bendy buses—I am glad to say, at least in Birmingham, the ones that do not catch fire—for a frequent, regular-interval service, if the passenger transport executive, and through it the highways authority, provided the bus priority measures. Noble Lords present will not be surprised to hear that since the highway authority, which is Birmingham City Council—controlled by the Conservatives and Liberals in the so-called "progressive alliance"—removed the bus lane, carryings on that service have fallen by 11 per cent and road traffic has increased considerably.
	Why are the passenger transport executives not condemning that sort of thing? Mr Rob Donald, the main speaker at their fringe meeting at last year's annual party conference and its about-to-retire director-general, blamed the decline not only on the 1985 Act, but also on the fact that the bus company made "excess profits". I do not wish to criticise anybody in their absence, but Mr Donald has not worked for a company that has to make a profit at any time in his working life. I had to point out in the question-and-answer session—I will not be invited back next year either—that before deregulation, and before the company which was previously municipally owned was taken over by its employees, it was heavily subsidised by the constituent councils. The profit that it has made certainly does not come from excess fares or low pay. Travel West Midlands prides itself on its cheapness when compared with companies in the rest of the country, and on the relatively high pay of its drivers when compared with the rest of the industry.
	Elected members at local level ought to fight a battle that they can win and they ought to concentrate on proper bus priority measures. Some elected members object to bus companies making a profit while they provide the facilities to enable them to do so. During my time at Travel West Midlands, we offered up to £30 million in matching funding to the passenger transport authority and executive for bus priority measures. It is five years since I stepped down as chairman. I think that the company has spent about £1.5 million of that money now, simply because the process is made so slow by the need to deal with a whole group of different highway authorities.
	What thought has been given to making passenger transport executives the highway authorities? That would avoid the situation that has arisen in Birmingham, where the PTA and PTE say one thing and the so-called "progressive alliance" in Birmingham does something else.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for initiating the debate today, even though it is now the time when we should be talking about night buses rather than any other sort.
	I declare an interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport. For many years, whenever I spoke in your Lordships' House on transport matters, I had to declare an interest as chair of the LGA transport executive. I no longer have to do that, but it strikes me that very few of the arguments which I was making in that capacity between 1997 and 2005 have changed. I remember the great enthusiasm that was expressed when John Prescott launched a document—I still shudder when I think about it—which was called From Workhorse to Thoroughbred or some such fantastical title. I am sure that that was its name; I do not think that I dreamt it. We had such enthusiasm for buses then. We thought that things would improve tremendously. Indeed, there have been some fairly major advances in certain areas. In places such as Brighton, York, Cambridge and Reading, bus services are extremely good. People are using them much more, and they are very much a part of the fabric of the local community. It is estimated that 3,500 new bus services have been introduced since 1998. However, despite that, the overall picture is quite bleak. Bus use outside London has declined by 7 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that we will not return to the position of the 1940s and 1950s, when we all travelled around by bus, because we have moved on. We are, on the whole, a car-dependent society.
	On the other hand, with levels of congestion as they are in our major conurbations, declining bus use is good news for nobody. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Government's position, in that there is a tension—as there often is—between central control and local discretion. As we have heard today, the discretion of a local authority in one area is to take out bus priority measures, which most of us would find quite appalling. One could argue that, as a democratically elected local authority, that is its choice. I recognise the tensions, but all our major conurbations suffer from problems similar to London in that tackling congestion is the key—not just in terms of transport policy, but also for wider business and economic objectives, quality of life and so on.
	It is ever more apparent that the key to that is having mechanisms and structures in which it is possible to integrate policies on road, rail, light rail, buses and so on. That is exactly what they were able to do in London, and why they were able to introduce a congestion charge. All the levers of policy are held within one organisation. I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in asking whether there are plans to consider extending those sorts of powers to the passenger transport areas—bringing them together, possibly under a reformed governance arrangement.
	The Government will certainly have to consider that if they are serious about extending road user charging into more of the major conurbations. Local authorities are currently able to bring in the stick of the road user charge without having any real control over the carrot of improved public transport. In major conurbations, we would need some sort of amendment to the Transport Act 2000 in which fares and frequencies could form parts of quality partnerships. We on these Benches argued strongly for that when the Act was going through. Fares and frequencies are of the most interest to the travelling public.
	In medium-sized settlements, the picture is rather different. Congestion at peak times is a problem, but we are seeing a growing number of deregistrations in many quite large settlements. This is tending to happen in suburban areas, where perhaps quality networks could be of value. Again, it is important to have this integration between rail, buses and cars, because these sorts of centres need to be linked to their rural hinterlands. Policies like park and ride, parking at stations and dealing with suburban services are important, as are other social policy measures. For example, being able to stagger school opening hours could be of immense value in relieving peak-time congestion. As I understand it, one of the difficulties of education reforms is that, by reducing the strategic powers of the local education authority, that sort of measure becomes less likely.
	In rural areas—such as Suffolk, where I live—the purpose is clearly not about modal shifts to deal with decongestion; it is simply one of accessibility. Services there are mainly supported by the local authority. Then, of course, there is school transport. Much of the regulatory framework, especially that dealing with safety, is not appropriate in rural areas. For example, after 31 miles of driving, working time rules increase costs enormously, meaning that services are being withdrawn in rural areas, because 31 miles is no distance at all there.
	A few key themes run through this bus debate, which I will highlight. First, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, made the point very well that there are growing levels of public support for the bus industry from passengers, through concessionary fares, subsidised services and capital expenditure. We must need some sort of mechanism to ensure that we are getting value for money and that that is understood. Local authorities have spent £6.7 million replacing withdrawn bus services in the past year, often under sustained and understandable local pressure. We do not really know how good the value for money is on those things. They are also faced with increasing contract costs—11.2 per cent on average last year. About a third of local authorities are now cutting some bus services because they are trying to remain within their budget. That is the first area.
	The second area, to which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred, is that of trends in competition in the bus industry, and the localised effect of that. It is a fact that nationally, one in five local bus services, when they go out to tender, receive only one bid. So there is not very much competition in the system. The five main bus operators in this country have 80 per cent of the services. But in certain areas, there is almost no competition at all. Possibly across a whole conurbation there are three or four operators—two will be tiny and the other two operate in half the area reached. Within smaller areas, the benefits of competition are not feeding through to the passenger.
	The third area is about understanding the external inflationary pressures on operators. Cost inflation in the bus industry is running at four to five times the headline level of inflation. It is certainly true that labour costs, including wages, are running quite high, but I have spoken to senior members of the bus industry, who tell me that the key problem is the cost of regulation—both that which is general to business, and specific to the bus industry. There seems to be a regulatory mission creep. The same senior figure told me that between 2000 and what is expected for next year, the industry will have had a new piece of regulation every seven weeks. Government need to look at that to see whether it is appropriate because it is adding enormously to the costs.
	My noble friend Lord Bradshaw has already referred to the role of the Office of Fair Trading. It still fails to permit co-operation on tickets and timetabling, which would benefit passengers, because of some theoretical adherence to competition theory. That is being looked at, but it is stopping benefits to passengers. While area monopolies are operating, the OFT does not seem to be interested at all.
	I was interested that concessionary fares were announced again in today's Budget, just as they were last year. I wonder whether they will be more free this year than they were last. It is odd to get two hits for the money, but it was announced again. The problem last year was that it was announced late on, and there was very little consultation with local authorities. There are now significant problems. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said, it is really to do with the way in which these are administered in very small local district areas. It means that repayment and renegotiations with the bus companies is expensive and time consuming. Where it goes across district and county borders, it can cause significant difficulties. I hope that the Minister will give an indication that the Government might consider half fares for 16 to 19 year-olds. If we can start to encourage varied travel habits at that sort of age, they will remain bus passengers for life.
	The Government need to do much more in providing public information, awareness and education about the benefits of varied travel habits, so that there is not some silly "either bus or car" argument, but a mixed economy of use, which will benefit all of us and the environment.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for giving me the opportunity to speak from these Benches on an issue that is of huge significance to many. Buses are much more than just a means of transport; they provide a crucial lifeline, helping to tackle both economic and social exclusion. Buses in rural areas, in particular, are often the only means that many of the most disadvantaged in our society have to engage with others. I live in Cornwall in the village of St Mawes on the Roseland, and our village would be absolutely lost without its bus.
	Nine out of 10 people who use buses are in the bottom income bracket, and 60 per cent of bus users have no access to cars. If something goes wrong with the bus system, we are allowing the mechanisms that increase social exclusion to continue to operate.
	Subsidies to buses have increased significantly, yet bus use outside London is falling. Over the past decade local bus use declined by 11 per cent, while rail use increased by 18 per cent. This was detailed well already by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In 2000, having recognised that those numbers decreased in many previous years, the Government produced a 10-year plan in which they set themselves the target of increasing bus journeys by 10 per cent by 2010. They also said they wished to improve the punctuality of the whole service nationally, which we have also heard about. They set many years' declining bus usage against increased prosperity, increasing car ownership, the increasing costs of bus travel and the falling cost of motoring. Clearly the Government have realised that the target that they set themselves was unattainable; it has already been revised twice and we now have a target not only for buses, but for bus and light rail, increasing usage by 12 per cent in every region.
	At this stage, like the noble Lord, Lord Snape, I had expected to find myself in the unusual position of joining the Government in refusing to want to go back to the pre-1986 system. But I have not got this lovely opportunity of being able to agree with the Government because it has not come up in the way in which I thought it was going to. So, at this late hour, rather than rambling on with the speech that I have prepared here, noble Lords may be happy to know that I have decided to confine myself to commenting on the London system that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned right at the beginning of his speech.
	We have mentioned the virtues of the system that operates in London. Yes, bus use is up. But fares are also up—by 35 per cent. That figure hides the cost of the concessionary scheme that Mr Livingstone has put in place. Indeed, local authorities across the capital have noticed that every year, they are told how much they have to provide for the extra-concessionary scheme. That figure usually comes off other budgets, which provide services to the most vulnerable, such as looking after children or adult social care, clearly damaging authorities' ability to care for people at risk.
	The Oyster cards may seem attractive but some of the pricing irregularities are worth noting. For no good reason, the Mayor has done away with the family railcard, so it now costs a family of two adults and two children travelling one stop something like £9.10, rather than the £3.40 that it cost them less than three months ago. The paragon that London has been described as must be very carefully considered before we go too far in saying that everything in London is wonderful and everything elsewhere is not. It is not true that it would be possible to duplicate the London experience elsewhere and there are several reasons for that: the demographics, the population density and the size of London, the limited availability of workplace parking, and the historic use of rail and tube networks, which are part of the general public transport system.
	The arguments seem to be not so much in favour in London. Many of the other arguments that I have heard here today and the questions that have been put to the Minister should be the focus of this Question tonight. Therefore I would prefer to sit down and listen to the Minister answering some of the good questions raised and also say that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has got an idea—after all, this has been Wales' night in this House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, identified the progress being made in Wales on the concessionary scheme. It has been the envy of many in England, as it is clearly recognised that the scheme covers a much wider area than any concessionary scheme in England has done. The noble Lord will have taken enormous delight in the Budget Statement today, which indicates that by 2008 we intend to make the resources available for a nationwide scheme in England. As I recall, England is marginally longer than Wales, north to south; and at its widest part, it is also broader. He will recognise that England is not just catching up; the necessary resources devoted to that endeavour are much greater than what has been demanded in Wales. We are grateful for the trailblazing by the National Assembly on this.
	We take pride that concessionary fares mean a great deal to those sections of our community who wish to travel but have very limited resources. That also applies to young people. The House will recognise that we are seeking to encourage at local level the extension of schemes for young people, and many local authorities have such schemes. For those aged over 16 in full-time education, that has been the case for some time now. Those are all positive aspects.
	The debate of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is on the bus industry outside London, and he is entitled to a reply. I will reply to that in a moment. First, I might clear the ground a little. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that the industry revolves around London as a model, and her difficulty is with the London scheme. Her difficulties with the London scheme are not the same as mine. She is critical of the London scheme; I look on it as a model for the nation. Of course, London has huge advantages in being able to deliver its scheme in terms of management of the roads system. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that management of the road system is crucial to the effective deployment of buses.
	We do not have any proposals as yet to give passenger transport executives Highway Authority powers along their major bus corridors, although I recognise that both noble Lords speaking strongly on behalf of the bus industry say that this would be an important contribution to their position. My noble friend indicated what a problem it is in a city such as Birmingham when the local authority takes a view entirely contrary to what I see as the interests of the bus industry. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering a number of options for changes in city governance, which relates to transport, so we are looking at those. It will not be enough to satisfy either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, this evening, but it is an indication that we are taking the point seriously.
	It should be recognised that car ownership in London is lower than in the rest of the country. In a very real sense, Londoners are more dependent on the bus; or the other way around. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would emphasise that if you provide buses people do not need recourse to the car. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. London is inevitably sui generis simply by its sheer size and range. It is not easy to extrapolate London provision elsewhere in the country.
	I hope that I can share with the House the disappointment that some of us felt about the Edinburgh vote against the congestion charge. If there is one dimension of traffic management that has been hugely successful in London, it has been the congestion charge. In a city known for the acumen and intelligence of its citizens, they rejected it. I think that was a setback for those of us who thought that London had set a pattern which might be followed elsewhere. These are local decisions and local authorities must take their own responsibility. The noble lord, Lord Bradshaw, knows only too well that quite a few of these issues revolve around local authority decisions. It is the same with regard to the question he asked me about car parking and the way in which local authorities organise those arrangements. Councillors are elected to run local authorities by the people who live within them, and they make the decisions on these things. I recognise the point that he is making—that the question of car parking and how you organise the traffic on the roads is absolutely crucial to bus usage. We all recognise that whereas London has seen a very significant increase in bus usage, it is not the case elsewhere, although there are achievements. Oxford, Brighton and York—the noble Lord will know Oxford well enough—have had rather a good record in recent years.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, it is those authorities that have the largest growth. They are unitary authorities, and I think that is the key. The car parking and the wider transport policy are in the same hands whereas in the shire counties the districts do the car parking but the county councils have overall transport responsibility.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that entirely. But it of course merely draws a contrast between the area where we see very substantial increase in bus usage—namely, London—and the differences that obtain elsewhere in the country. That does not alter the fact that pressure should be developed to recognise that cities and towns that are developing bus usage have an integrated policy where the pieces come together in terms of road usage—and it does relate to car parking as well, and in places that are much smaller than cities. Kidderminster increased its bus usage by 10 per cent and Bedford by 16 per cent. Exeter is a city, though not a large one, and it increased usage by 12 per cent. Where intelligent strategies are deployed, bus usage does increase significantly.
	The noble Lord raised a number of issues in his speech. I hope he feels I have dealt with the concessionary fares issue. I certainly recognise that we need to target investment to stimulate the bus industry. Kickstart aims to pump-prime new services or service improvements which contribute to the Government's overall objectives of increasing bus patronage. Funding is given to projects that have a clear prospect of becoming commercially viable or otherwise fully self-sustaining. We have 43 such schemes in action at present. Kickstart cost a total of £20 million last year. Those are limited initiatives but they are also an indication of how we can encourage areas that are taking the issue of bus usage seriously. We can give some help there.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, one point I specifically made was that when the Government consider local transport plans and spending money under the transport initiatives fund, they have the opportunity of rewarding authorities that pursue policies that are friendly towards the bus. I hope that they will take that opportunity. I think that government can send out signals with the money they award to the authorities which are taking action that is friendly to the bus as opposed to authorities that apparently do not. As for Kickstart, I usually travel to the House on a Kickstart route. It will be running until 11.35 tonight but I still will not be in time for it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry if I have caused the noble Lord to miss his bus, but he has a choice between leaving to catch the bus and listening to my reply to the points that he raised. He expressed some disappointment about the development of partnerships. We would have wanted fruitful partnerships. Where they work well they produce such striking results that we want those partnerships extended. There are several hundred voluntary partnerships at the moment but we have not seen the use of the statutory quality partnership power in the Transport Act 2000, which gives an enforcement role to traffic commissioners. We would like to encourage use of that power and we are going to publish guidance to encourage its use, but it has not yet been taken up, which reflects the response of those on the ground.
	The Transport Act provides a means of introducing franchising outside London in the form of quality contract schemes, as the noble Lord is aware, but that power is not being employed to the extent that we would wish. We are taking steps to make the task less daunting, in terms of the specification drawn up, by issuing guidance and shortening the statutory minimum time between making a scheme and its coming into force. At the moment it is 21 months, which is a long period; we are reducing it to six months.
	We need progress in those areas. We have no illusion in government that the bus industry outside London is not working optimally, as my noble friend Lord Snape will testify. We want to take initiatives to stimulate it, which we are doing through a mixture of funding regulation and, most importantly, partnerships. We will not go back to the system that obtained in the early 1980s. The current framework, which has the potential to deliver more than at present, relies on national government, but also on local government and bus operators to work together for the benefit of us all.
	Today's Budget contained good news; good enough news for me to look the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in the eye and feel that if I have not quite matched him, I have indicated that we are thinking along the same lines. However, there is a great deal to be done on bus services in the country. We must always bear in mind that, for many people, the bus is the only means of transport and, if it does not run punctually, there are not frequent services or the buses are not up to standard, some of the least well-off in our community are deprived of an essential means of transport. In an age when we all recognise that car use makes such demands on roads, the bus is still a servant of the people, and we must make sure that it is there to be so.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Identity Cards Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain Commons amendments to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on and with the Lords amendments disagreed to; the Commons reasons were ordered to be printed.
	House adjourned at nineteen minutes past ten o'clock.
	Wednesday, 22 March 2006.